f  I 


$1 


f 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  FIFTH 
General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 

In  the  United  States  of  America, 
WASHINQTON,    D.    C  ,    MAY,   1893. 


THE   PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH  IN   THE 
UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA, 

APPELLANT, 

AGAINST 

THE  REV.  CHARLES  A.  BRIGGS,  D.  D., 

APPELLEE. 


Appellant's  Argument  in  support  of  motion  to 
sustain  the  Appeal. 


Argume7it  of 

REV.  JOSEPH  J.  LAMPE,  D.  D., 

A  Member  of  the  Prosectiting  Comjuiiiee. 


ONE   HUNDRED   AND   FIFTH 
General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 

In  the  United  States  of  America, 
W^ASHINOXON,     D.    C,     N'lAY,    1893. 


THE  PRESBYTERIAN   CHURCH  IN   THE 


UNITED   STATES  OF  AMERICA, 

APPELLANT, 
AGAINST 

THE  REV.    CHARLES  A.   BRIGGS,   B,  D. 

APPELLEE. 


Appellant's   Argument  in  support  of  motion  to 
SUSTAIN  the  Appeal. 


Argument  ofy 


REV,   JOSEPH  7,   IaMPE,   D.  D., 

A  Member  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee. 


OHN  C.  RANKIN  CO.,  PRINTERSp 
J  34  CORTLANDT  ST.,  NEW  YOKXc 


T 


THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH  IN   THE 
UNITED   STATES   OF  AMERICA, 

APPELLANT, 
AGAINST 

THE  REV,    CHARLES  A.    BRIG  OS,    D.  D., 

APPELLEE. 


Appellant's   Argument  in  support  of  motion   to 

SUSTAIN    THE    ApPEAL. 


In  accordance  with  Section  qS  of  the  Book  of  Discipline, 
the  Appellants  assign  five  grounds  of  appeal,  viz.  :  Irreg- 
ularity in  the  proceedings  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  ; 
receiving  improper,  and  declining  to  receive  important 
testimony;  manifestation  of  prejudice  in  the  conduct  of 
the  case  ;  and  mistake  or  injustice  in  the  decision. 

Some  of  the  specifications  under  these  grounds  have 
reference  only  to  the  order  of  procedure.  Your  attention 
is  called  to  them  for  the  reason  that  errors  of  procedure 
should  not  be  allowed  to  become  precedents  for  future 
cases. 

I  St.  The  first  ground  is  that  of  irregularity  in  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  lower  judicatory. 

I.  The  first  important  error  was  the  rejection  of 
Charges  4  and  7  of  the  amended  form  ;  for  if  these  charges 
were  essential  parts  of  the  original  charges,  sent  down 


by  the  General  Assembly  of  1892  to  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York,  to  be  tried  on  the  merits  thereof,  and,  if  Dr. 
Briggs  has  really  not  disavowed  the  serious  errors  charged 
against  him  in  them,  then  it  was  irregular  for  the  Presby- 
tery to  order  the  Committee  of  Prosecution  to  strike  them 
out,  and  the  Appellants  were  in  duty  bound  to  bring  them 
here,  as  has  been  done  in  the  first  and  second  specifica- 
tions under  the  first  ground  of  appeal. 

Two  principal  objections  were  made  to  these  charges  : 
I.  That  they  were  new  charges.  2.  That  the  defendant 
had  disclaimed  the  teachinof  with  which  these  charg^es 
were  concerned. 

The  substance  of  Charge  4  was  originally  a  specification 
under  the  first  of  the  original  charges  (Spec.  7).  It 
was  objected  to  as  being  vague  and  indefinite,  and,  in 
accordance  with  Dr.  Briggs'  own  criticisms,  it  was  made 
definite.  It  was  objected  that  it  did  not  charge  the  con- 
travening of  any  essential  doctrine,  and  so  an  explanatory 
clause  was  added  to  show  the  essential  character  of  the 
doctrine  which  had  been  contravened. 

The  7th  specification  of  the  first  original  charge  accused 
Dr,  Briggs  of  teaching  that  much  of  predictive  prophecy 
had  been  reversed  by  history,  and  that  many  predictions 
had  not  been  and  could  not  be  fulfilled.  Charge  4  is  more 
specific.  It  relates  principally  to  Messianic  prophecy. 
It  refers  to  the  exact  words  of  Dr.  Briggs.  The  general 
nature  so  far  is  not  changed  ;  the  general  nature  of  Specifi- 
cation 7  was  predictive  prophecy,  and,  as  Messianic  proph- 


ecy  is  a  species  of  predictive  prophecy,  it  is  not  chang- 
ing the  general  nature  to  raise  the  question  of  the  species 
instead  of  the  question  of  predictive  prophecy  generally. 

But  objection  was  made  to  the  explanatory  clause  in 
the  4th  amended  charge.  Does  this  make  the  charge 
new  ?     If  so,  then  one  must  ask  this  question  : 

Why  is  it  an  offence  to  deny  the  fulfillment  of  the  great 
body  of  Messianic  prediction  ?  Well,  your  answer  may 
be  either  (a)  Because  the  word  of  God  is  infallible,  in 
which  case  you  assume  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible  as  the 
ground  for  belief  in  the  Messianic  prophecy,  or  (b) 
Because  of  the  attributes  of  God.  Dr.  Briggs  affirms  that 
the  great  body  of  Messianic  prediction  not  only  has  not 
been  fulfilled  but  cannot  be  fulfilled.  If  that  be  the 
correct  view,  it  must  be  asked,  What  is  to  be  thought  of 
Him  who  inspires  a  false  prophecy,  and  of  the  words  of 
Jesus  Himself  that  all  things  must  be  fulfilled  ?  Inasmuch 
as  Dr.  Briggs  had  denied  the  truthfulness  of  Scripture, 
and  yet  had  admitted  its  Inspiration,  the  only  possible 
essential  reason  which  could  be  adduced  for  the  doctrine 
of  the  fulfillment  of  all  Messianic  prediction  was  that  it 
came  with  the  authority  of  God.  That  God  being  true 
could  not  lie  ;  that  God  beinor  omniscient  could  not  be 
ignorant ;  that  God  being  immutable  could  not  change. 
Undoubtedly  the  charge  was  serious  ;  possibly  the 
defendant  was  not  aware  of  what  he  had  been  denying. 
But,  If  Innocent  of  the  charge,  it  was  for  him  to  retract  the 
assertion,  or  to  meet  the  evidence  of  the  Committee  with 


6 

proper  evidence  of  his  own.  On  the  contrary,  he  asserts 
before  the  testimony  is  taken,  that  he  does  not  hold  any 
such  doctrine,  and  yet  reaffirms  the  doctrine  by  declining 
to  retract  the  original  statement.  Can  any  one  say  that 
such  a  manner  of  dealing  with  the  subject  did  not  demand 
the  judicial  decision  of  the  Presbytery  ? 

This  brings  us  to  the  other  ground  upon  which  Charge 
4  ^vas  struck  out.  It  was  because  of  the  alleged  dis- 
claimers and  disavowals  of  the  defendant. 

All  the  eieht. amended  charges  alleofed  certain  offences. 
The  evidence  for  these  allegations  was  contained  in 
.verbatim  citations  from  the  writings  of  Dr.  Briggs,  which 
he  himself  put  in  evidence,  and  which  he  declined  to 
withdraw  or  retract.  Prior  to  being  called  upon  to  plead 
''guilty"  or  "  not  guilty"  to  the  charges,  and  while  the 
sufficiency  of  the  charges  was  under  discussion,  his 
alleged  disclaimers  and  disavowals,  which  were  not  at 
that  time  in  evidence,  were  brought  forward  as  a  ground 
upon  which  Charge  4  and  also  Charge  7  should  be  struck 
out.  He  objected,  and  Dr.  George  Alexander  objected 
on  his  behalf,  to  going  to  trial  on  Charges  4  and  7, 
because  he  had  never  taught  the  doctrines  with  teaching 
which  he  is  therein  charged.  Why,  then,  did  he  consent 
to  o"0  to  trial  on  the  remaining  charges  ?  Was  it  because 
he  has  tausfht  the  doctrines  therein  alleged  ?  If  that  is 
the  reason,  then  why  did  he  plead  not  guilty  to  these 
remaining  charges  ?  Why  did  he  not  disclaim  these  as 
he  disclaimed  Charges  4  and  7  ?    But,  if  he  has  not  taught 


7 

any  of  the  doctrines  alleged  in  the  amended  eieht  charo-es 
why  not  go  to  trial  on  all  eight  of  them,  or  else  disclaim 
having  committed  the  offences  contained  in  all  ei<Tht  of 
them  ?  The  Committee  had  no  wish  to  find  more  errors 
in  the  Inaugural  than  were  really  there  ;  but  the  duty  of 
the  Committee  was  to  the  church,  to  come  to  a  decision 
as  to  these  doctrines  taught  explicidy  in  the  Inaugural 
Address,  which  had  never  been  withdrawn  or  retracted 
by  the  defendant.  A  plea  of  not  guilty  is  not  sufficient 
evidence  in  a  man's  defence.  Still  less  is  a  plea  of  not 
guilty  sufficient  evidence  when  it  is  not  introduced  as 
evidence,  but  is  brought  forward  irregularly  as  a  pre- 
liminary objection  to  the  indictment. 

Much  fault  was  found  with  the  committee  for  noticino- 
this  doctrine  of  predictive  prophecy  in  connection  Avith 
Dr.  Briggs'  doctrine  of  Scripture,  but  the  mandate  of  the 
Assembly  was  that  the  case  should  be  tried  on  its  merits, 
and  this  was  a  part  of  the  original  case.  The  Inaugural 
Address  had  been  put  in  evidence  by  the  defendant  him- 
self; it  was  no  injustice  to  discuss  that  evidence. 

Having  discussed  so  especially  Charge  4,  but  litde  re- 
mains to  be  said  with  respect  to  the  amended  Charge  7. 
It  will  be  sufficient  to  inquire  whether  it  was  a  new 
charge.  Charge  7  of  the  amended  charges  is  a  sub- 
division of  Charge  2  of  the  original  charges. 

The  latter  charged  the  defendant  with  teaching  a  doc- 
trine of  "  the  character,  state  and  sancdfication  of  believers 
■''  after  death."     Notice  the  exact  words.     It  is  not  a  doc- 


trine  of  the  sanctificatioii  of  believers  after  death  alone^ 
but  is  a  doctrine  with  respect  to  the  state  and  character 
after  death.  What  is  the  state  and  character  of  the  be- 
liever after  death  ?  Is  he  one  who  has  already  believed 
in  this  life,  or  has  he  come  to  faith  and  penitence  beyond 
the  grave  ?  On  this  subject  the  teaching  of  the  Inaugural 
Address  is  definite,  although  it  might  be  said  that  the 
second  original  charge  was  indefinite.  To  make  the  ac- 
cusation definite,  so  that  the  defendant  might  have  knowl- 
edge of  the  specific  offence  with  which  he  was  charged,  the 
original  Charge  2  was  divided  into  amended  Charges  7 
and  8.  The  general  nature  of  original  Charge  2  was 
eschatological.  It  was  also  so  closely  related  to  Dr. 
Briggs'  doctrine  of  Redemption,  that  one  of  these  doc- 
trines could  not  be  understood  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
other.  The  Committee  was  prepared  to  show  that  the 
defendant  had  taught  that  other  processes  than  sanctifica- 
tion  were  continued  in  the  life  to  come,  and  they  summed 
these  up  in  the  words,  state  and  character,  as  distinguished 
from  sanctification.  Dr.  Briggs  has  expressly  taught  that 
more  than  one  of  the  processes  of  redemption  may  go  on  in 
the  future  state.  The  Committee  were  prepared  to  prove 
this  at  the  time  when  the  original  charges  were  presented, 
and  they  are  prepared  to  prove  the  amended  Charge  7,  to 
which  Dr.  Briggs,  in  advance  of  being  called  to  plead, 
made  the  alleged  disclaimer.  Judicial  process  was  neces- 
sary to  determine  whether  his  written  words  upon 
which  the  charges  are  based  or  his  verbal  disclaimer 
were   to    be  taken  as  the  truth.     The   language    of  the 


9 

Inaugural  is  on  this  point  unambiguous,  and  has  never 
been  retracted. 

The  original  Charge  2  deals  with  the  subject-matter 
of  both  amended  Charges  7  and  8. 

Under  the  specification  to  the  original  charge  is  cited 
that  passage  of  the  Inaugural  Address  where  it  is  said : 
''  Another  fault  of  Protestant  theology  is  in  its  limitation 
"  of  the  process  of  redemption  to  this  world."  The  process 
of  redemption  is  a  process  which  corresponds  to  the 
''  character  and  state  ''  referred  to  under  original  Charge 
2.  The  process  of  redemption,  according  to  the  defendant, 
is  a  manifold  process.  It  includes  regeneration,  faith,  as 
well  as  sanctification.  The  denial  of  Dr.  Briggs,  as  it  is 
called,  in  answer  to  the  question  on  this  subject  as  pro- 
pounded by  the  Directors  of  Union  Seminary,  took  place 
before  the  General  Assembly  of  1892  sent  the  case  for 
full  trial  to  the  lower  judicatory.  The  Prosecuting  Com- 
mittee reappears  here  with  the  same  complaint,  that 
being  ready  to  prove  the  charge  with  respect  to  the 
defendant's  views  of  the  future  life,  in  spite  of  the  opin- 
ions of  judges  who  were  his  advocates  on  the  floor  of  the 
Presbytery,  the  general  nature  of  original  Charge  2  was 
so  changed  by  the  order  of  the  court  that  the  mandate  of 
the  General  Assembly  has  been  disobeyed  in  one  of  the 
most  important  particulars. 

The  changes  made  in  extracts  from  the  Confession  can- 
not change  the  general  nature  of  the  charge.  The  refer- 
ences to  the  Confession  in   both   series  of  charges    and 


10 

specifications  are  practically  the  same,  the  changes  being 
comparatively  few.  But  it  matters  not  whether  they  are 
few  or  many,  for  references  to  the  Standards  are  proofs 
to  the  charges,  not  part  of  the  charges  themselves.  In 
any  event,  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  Standards 
are  always  in  the  Court,  both  as  law  and  evidence,  and 
that  any  part  of  them  can  be  cited  at  any  time  in  support 
of  a  charee. 

2.  The  second  error  was  in  compelling  transfer  of  the 
proofs  from  their  proper  place  after  the  specifications  to  a 
place  immediately  following  the  charges.  Since  the 
Presbytery  was  to  vote  on  the  matter  contained  in  the 
specifications,  either  to  sustain  or  not  to  sustain  the 
charges,  it  was  the  Committee's  duty  to  show  that  the 
statements  contained  in  the  specifications  are  in  conflict 
with  Scripture  and  the  Standards.  The  order  to  transfer 
the  references  to  Scripture  and  the  Standards  from  the 
specifications  to  the  charges  was  made  with  the  evident 
purpose  to  place  them  where  they  could  not  be  used 
"effectively  as  proofs.  This  order  therefore  was  a  gross 
error  in  procedure  on  the  part  of  the  Presbytery  as 
pointed  out  in  the  third  specification. 

3.  The  insertion  of  a  large  amount  of  matter  into  the 
official  stenographic  report,  at  the  request  of  the  defendant 
and  with  the  approval  of  the  Moderator,  after  the  adjourn- 
ment of  the  Court  and  after  both  parties  had  given 
notice  that  they  had  presented  all  the  evidence  which  they 
intended  to    offer,  was   grossly    irregular    and  therefore 


11 

more  than  a  mistake,  as  indicated  in  Specifications  7 
and  8.  It  needs  no  discussion  to  convince  the  Assem- 
bly that  evidence  can  be  introduced  regularly  only  in 
open  Court  and  at  the  proper  time. 

4.  The  vote  to  strike  from  the  record  the  request  of 
the  Committee  of  Prosecution,  as  stated  in  Specifications 
9  and  10  ;  the  refusal  to  permit  the  members  of  the 
judicatory  to  vote  to  sustain  in  part,  as  indicated  in  the 
eleventh  specification  ;  and  the  decision  to  give  to  the 
unsworn  statements,  explanations  and  disclaimers  of  the 
defendant  the  force  of  sworn,  approbated  and  subscribed 
testimony  as  noticed  in  the  sixth  specification,  were  all 
flagrant  errors  of  procedure.  The  bare  mentioning  of 
them  makes  plain  their  irregularity. 

5.  The  sixth  specification  refers  to  the  new  matter 
alleged  to  have  been  introduced  in  the  argument  replying 
to  that  of  Dr.  Briggs.  If  that  contention  had  any  force,  it 
obliges  us  to  make  the  terms  "  new  matter  "  equivalent  to 
new  evidence.  A  reference  to  the  artrument  will  show 
any  thoughtful  man  that  no  new  evidence  was  introduced. 
That  new  matter,  in  the  way  of  varied  presentation  of  the 
case,  in  the  way  of  illustration  and  argument  was  brought 
in.  there  can  be  no  doubt,  otherwise  the  closing  argu- 
ment would  have  been  but  a  repetition  of  the  opening. 
The  argument  was  confined  strictly  within  the  limits  of 
the  evidence  submitted,  and  in  every  case  was  directed 
against  the  pivotal  positions  of  the  Appellee.  It  was  un- 
necessary to  follow  the  defence  step  by  step.     It  was   no 


12 

less  the  Committee's  duty  than  its  privilege  to  show  in 
any  legitimate  way  which  seemed  most  effective  that  he 
had  evaded  the  main  issue  and  had  not  harmonized  his 
views  with  the  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Standards. 

The  defendant  errs  in  maintaining  that  we  had  only  the 
right  of  rebuttal.  The  Committee's  argument  was  not  in 
rebuttal,  but  was  the  closing  argument  of  the  prosecution, 
in  which  all  the  evidence  submitted  by  both  was  at  our 
disposal  for  use  in  answer  to  that  of  the  defence. 

The  Appellee  also  errs  in  speaking  of  illustration  in 
argument  as  the  introduction  of  new  evidence.  It  is  a 
well-settled  principle  of  ecclesiastical  procedure  that 
authorities  quoted  in  illustration  have  the  force,  not  of 
evidence,  but  of  argument. 

It  was  therefore  irregular  to  allow  the  defendant  to  re- 
ply to  the  closing  argument  of  the  prosecution. 

6.  The  twelfth  specification  calls  your  attention  to  the 
order  of  the  inferior  judicatory,  directing  that  each  item 
of  the  several  charges  should  be  voted  on  separately,  for 
the  alleged  reason  that  each  charge  contained  as  many 
offences  as  it  contains  direct  references  to  doctrines  of  the 
Standards.  But  this  is  clearly  a  mistake.  Each  one  of 
the  five  charges  contains  but  a  single  offence  as  any  one 
will  see  from  a  single  glance  at  them. 

The  double  or  triple  reference  to  doctrines  of  the  Con- 
fession does  not  multiply  the  offence  to  that  extent,  but 
furnishes  so  many  proofs  to  establish  the   one    offence. 


13 

Had  we  cited  a  dozen  doctrines  of  the  Confession  in  sup- 
port of  a  charge  and  in  addition  a  hundred  texts  from  the 
Bible,  they  would  not  have  made  so  many  different  of- 
fences in  the  charge,  but  would  have  been  merely  so 
many  added  proofs  to  establish  the  one  offence  of  the 
charge.  If  the  position  taken  by  the  Presbytery  be  cor- 
rect, then  it  will  be  impossible  ever  to  cite  more  than  one 
proof  in  support  of  an  offence. 

2d.  The  second  and  third  grounds  of  appeal  refer  to 
the  question  of  testimony,  and  they  may  be  con- 
sidered together. 

I.  That  large  amount  of  matter  which,  by  the  request 
of  the  defendant  and  with  the  approval  of  the  Moderator, 
was  inserted  into  the  official  stenographic  report,  after  the 
adjournment  of  the  Presbytery,  cannot,  in  any  proper 
sense,  be  called  testimony  at  all.  And  yet  it  was  allowed 
by  the  Presbytery  to  remain  on  the  record  as  competent 
evidence. 

In  regard  to  the  other  evidence  offered  by  Dr.  Briggs, 
it  should  be  said  that  he  declined  to  verify  it  under  oath. 
He  denounced  the  request  that  he  be  required  to  do  so 
as  an  outrage.  He  was  both  counsel  and  client,  and,  as 
counsel,  he  made  statements,  explanations  and  disclaim- 
ers in  regard  to  the  language  which  his  client  had  used, 
to  which  the  inferior  judicatory,  contrary  to  the  direc- 
tions of  Sections  6 1  and  62  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  gave 
the  full  value  of  competent  evidence  for  making  up  their 
final  verdict. 


14 

This  was  especially  unfortunate,  as  It  has  been  alJ 
alonof  evident,  we  are  not  so  much  concerned  with  the 
form  of  the  defendant's  statements  as  with  the  meaning 
which  he  puts  into  the  form.  Had  the  Presbytery 
ordered  Dr.  Briggs  to  put  his  client  on  the  witness-stand 
to  make  affirmations  under  oath,  as  the  Book  directs,  it 
might  have  been  possible  to  determine  more  exactly  the 
value  and  meaning  which  are  to  be  attached  to  his  state- 
ments. 

2.  Furthermore,  the  Presbytery  erred  in  declining  to 
receive  important  testimony.  We  have  shown  that  the 
fourth  and  seventh  charges  properly  belong  to  the 
amended  series,  since  the  matter  contained  in  them  was 
essentially  in  the  original  charges. 

In  these  charges  Dr.  Briggs  is  accused  of  teaching- 
grave  errors.  The  Committee  of  Prosecution  offered  to- 
produce  testimony  to  prove  those  charges  ;  and  whether 
competent  to  prove  them  or  not,  it  was  certainly  impor- 
tant testimony,  and  for  that  reason  should  have  been  re- 
ceived and  examined  by  the  Presbytery.  But  instead  of 
that  the  Presbytery  ordered  the  charges  to  be  stricken 
out  on  the  ground  principally  of  some  general  disclaimers 
which  Dr.  Briggs  was  alleged  to  have  made,  but  which 
were  not  specified  and  were  not  presented  to  the  Court 
as  testimony. 

3rd.  The  state  of  things  to  which  your  attention  is  called 
In  the  specifications  given  under  the  fourth  ground  of  ap- 
peal, shows  conclusively  that  prejudice  was  manifested  in, 


15 

the  conduct  of  the  case.  I  need  not  speak  of  them  at 
length.  Similar  conduct  by  members  of  the  Presbytery 
of  New  York  was  declared  by  the  Assembly  of  1892  to 
be  a  manifestation  of  prejudice. 

A  number  of  the  members  of  the  lower  Court  showed 
a  deep  personal  interest  in  the  case  of  the  defendant. 
Some  manifested  all  the  zeal  of  advocates  instead  of  main- 
taining- the  calmness  and  equipoise  of  judges. 

One  of  the  judges  allowed  his  zeal  to  carry  him  so  far 
that  he  affirmed  and  re-affirmed  that  some  of  the  charo-es 
gave  Dr.  Briggs  the  lie  direct. 

The  names  of  some  of  the  judges  are  introduced  be- 
cause of  a  principle  which  is  here  involved.  It  is  not 
simply  that  in  assuming  the  role  of  advocates  they  exhib- 
ited prejudice.  It  is  especially  on  account  of  the  grounds 
upon  which  they  made  prejudiced  appeals  to  the  Court. 
Their  remarks  also  have  especial  interest  from  the  time 
at  which  they  were  made. 

In  the  closing  argument  for  the  prosecution  citations  by 
way  of  argument  and  illustrations  were  made  from  many 
eminent  writers  as  expressive  of  the  views  which  the 
speaker  was  maintaining.  It  was  not  new  evidence,  for 
the  time  of  taking  evidence  was  past.  This  kind  of 
argument  was  characterized  by  Dr.  George  Alexander 
as  a  "fresh  assault"  upon  Dr.  Briggs,  and  another 
judge  insisted  that  new  matter  had  been  introduced. 
They  were  called  upon  to  specify  the  "new  matter." 
They  did  not  and  could  not  do  so. 

Their   objection  was  to  the  quotations  which  illustrated  . 


16 

the  speaker's  denial  of  the  claim  of  Dr.  Briggs  that  his 
views  represented  the  belief  of  historic  Presbyterianism. 
These  extracts  made  every  drop  of  Anglo-Saxon  blood 
in  the  brethren  named  **  to  protest  and  boil."  The  quo- 
tations were  from  men  like  Augustine,  Luther,  Calvin, 
Baxter,  the  Westminster  divines,  and  especially  from  the 
writings  of  American  Presbyterians  like  Jonathan  Dickin- 
son, Samuel  Davies,  Jonathan  Edwards,  John  Wither- 
spoon,  Ashbel  Green,  Archibald  Alexander,  Thomas  H. 
Skinner,  Albert  Barnes  and  Henry  B.  Smith.  If  the  time 
has  come  when  Presbyterian  blood  boils  at  the  words  of 
such  men  as  these,  I  insist  that  the  attention  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  should  be  called  to  the  fact ;  especially 
since  the  blood  of  the  same  judges  did  not  *'  protest  and 
boil '"  when  the  defendant  introduced  a  large  number  of 
names  as  authorities  in  support  of  his  doctrine  of  an  errant 
Bible,  many  of  whom  advance  rationalistic,  if  not  infidel, 
views,  and  none  of  them,  in  my  opinion,  hold  the  true 
Presbyterian  doctrine  respecting  the  Holy  Scripture. 

This  claim  on  the  part  of  the  Committee,  that  there  was 
prepossession  of  opinion  and  prejudiced  judgment  on  the 
part  of  certain  officials  of  Union  Seminary,  is  not  essen- 
tially different  from  the  declaration  of  the  Directors  them- 
selves. This  declaration  was  made  through  Mr.  Kingsley, 
their  representative  in  the  General  Assembly  in  1892. 
According  to  him,  previous  to  the  regular  trial  in  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York  there  had  been  an  investigation 
of  the  charges  brought  against  Dr.  Briggs.  This  investi- 
gation was  made  by  the  officers  of  Union  Seminary.  The 


17 

result  was  the  questions  put  by  the  Directors  of  Union 
Seminary  and  answered  by  Dr.  Briggs,  to  which  allusion 
has  so  often  been  made.  I  quote  from  the  report  of  the 
Directors  read  by  Mr.  KIngsley  before  the  Portland 
Assembly  : 

"  This  board  had  carefully  Investigated  the  charges 
'  which  the  Presbyteries  were  bringing  against  Dr. 
'  Briggs  and  had  received  from  him  a  clear  and  positive 
'  denial  of  each  charge,  on  the  ground  of  which  denials 
'  the  board  resolved  to  sustain  him,  saying  that  '  we  will 
'  stand  by  him  heartily  on  the  ground  of  this  report '  (i.  e., 
'  the  report  of  his  denials  received  from  the  committee  of 
'  investigation)." 

And  again  in  his  remarks  on  the  report  Mr.  KIngsley 
said  :  "It  was  due  to  ourselves  and  to  Dr.  Brlofcrs  that 
"  we  should  be  true  to  the  promise  we  had  made  'to 
"  stand  by  him.'  " 

Prejudice  was  also  manifested  by  the  Presbytery  in 
allowing  the  defendant  the  largest  liberty  for  introducing 
improper  testimony  ;  In  declining  to  receive  Important 
testimony  offered  by  the  Committee  of  Prosecution  ; 
in  throwing  out  Charges  4  and  7  ;  in  expressing  a 
desire  to  relieve  the  Committee  of  Prosecution  from  any 
further  responsibility  in  connection  with  the  case ;  and  In 
stating  It  to  be  their  "  earnest  conviction  that  the  grave 
'*  issues  Involved  In  this  case  will  be  more  wisely  and 
"  justly  determined  by  calm  Investigation  and  fraternal 
''  discussion  than  by  judicial  arraignment  and  process." 
As  the  issues  Involved  are  acknowledged  to  be  *'  grave," 


18 

It  would  be  reasonable  for  unbiased  judges  to  conclude 
that  those  issues  would  be  more  wisely  and  justly  deter- 
mined by  judicial  process  rather  than  by  the  calm  investi- 
gation and  fraternal  discussion,  by  which  nothing  can  be 
determined  authoritatively. 

4th.  The  facts  presented  in  the  specifications  under  the 
fifth  ground  of  appeal  show  that  mistakes  and 
injustice  have  entered  into  the  final  judgment 
of  the  inferior  judicatory. 

A  brief  consideration  of  a  few  of  these  facts  cannot 
fail  to  convince  you. 

I.  According  to  Section  5S  of  the  Book  of  Discipline, 
if  the  specifications  of  fact  on  which  a  charge  is  based  have 
been  shown  to  be  true,  then  the  charge  is  to  be  consid- 
ered as  sustained.  Dr.  Briggs  offered  no  proof  to  show 
that  he  had  not  made  the  statements  which  are  cited  in  the 
specifications.  On  the  contrary,  he  admitted  and  authen- 
ticated them  all.  The  charges  were  based  on  these  state- 
ments and  sustained  by  them.  Under  such  circum- 
stances, a  verdict  of  acquittal  could  be  justified  only  on  the 
ground  that  the  charges  themselves  were  not  relevant  or 
that  they  contained  no  valid  offences.  But  when  the 
Presbytery  declared  the  charges  and  specifications  to  be 
sufficient  in  form  and  legal  effect,  It  thereby  decided  that 
the  charges  severally  alleged  an  offence.  Otherwise,  the 
charges  and  specifications  would  not  have  been  sufficient 
in  form  and  legal  effect.  And  therefore,  since  the  charges 
were  sustained  by  the  facts  stated  In  the  specifications, 


19 

it  must  be  that  the  verdict  of  acquittal  was  not  reached 
in  accordance  with  the  law  and  evidence  in  the  case. 

2.  That  the  charges  were  proved  becomes  still  more 
evident  from  the  statement  made  in  the  verdict  rendered 
by  the  inferior  judicatory  to  the  effect  that  in  acquitting 
Dr.  Briggs,  the  Presbytery  is  not  to  be  understood  as 
''  expressing  approval  of  the  critical  and  theological  view^s 
"embodied  in  his  Inaugural  Address."  A  resolution  to 
that  effect  was  introduced  on  the  floor  of  Presbytery  when 
the  voting  was  about  to  commence,  possibly  with  the 
intention  of  securing  votes  for  acquittal  which  otherwise 
might  be  conscientiously  withheld. 

But  why  this  caveat  if  the  views  of  Dr.  Briggs  are  in 
harmony  with  received  truth  ?  Manifestly,  the  majority 
of  Presbytery  do  not  desire  to  burden  themselves  or 
cloud  their  reputation  by  an  espousal  of  those  views. 
They  must  consider  the  influence  of  such  doctrines  bane- 
ful to  no  slight  extent. 

For  those  critical  and  theological  views,  Dr.  Briggs 
was  put  on  trial.  He  not  only  approves  them,  but  dili- 
gently propagates  them.  And  it  was  the  duty  of  the 
lower  Court,  by  a  calm  and  impartial  investigation,  to 
ascertain  whether  or  not,  those  critical  and  theological 
views  are  in  harmony  with  the  Holy  Scripture  and  the 
Standards  ;  and  to  condemn  them  if  they  did  not  find 
them  in  harmony  with  those  authorities,  and  thus  to  check 
their  spread  and  influence  in  the  most  effective  way. 


20 

The  fact  that  they  felt  disinclined  to  acquit  the  defend- 
ant, without  expressing  a  distinct  disavowal  of  his  critical 
and  theological  views,  for  which  he  is  on  trial,  leads  to  a 
very  strong  presumption  that  the  decision  is  contrary  to 
the  evidence  not  only,  but  that  those  rendering  the  decis- 
ion recoofnize  the  views  of  the  defendant  as  conflictinQ^ 
with  the  Scripture  and  the  Standards  ;  for,  certainly,  no 
body  of  Presbyterian  ministers  and  elders  need  be  at 
pains  to  disavow  views  which  are  in  accord  with  the  Bible 
and  our  Creed.  The  inferior  judicatory,  in  this  final 
judgment,  has  not  given  us  either  good  Presbyterian  law 
or  doctrine. 

3.  The  presumption  that  the  charges  were  proved  is 

strengthened  by  reference  to  the  method  by  which  the 

verdict  was  reached.     This  was  by  "  giving  due  consid- 

'  eration  to  the  defendant's  explanation  oT  the  language 

'  used  in  his  Inaugural  Address,  accepting  his  frank  and 

*  full  disclaimer  of  the  interpretation  which  has  been  put 
'  upon  some  of  its  phrases  and  illustrations,"  and  "  cred- 

*  iting  his  affirmations  of  loyalty  to  the  Standards  of  the 
'  Church  and  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  the  only  infallible 
'  rule  of  faith  and  practice." 

This  can  only  mean  that  they  have  taken  Dr.  Briggs  at 
his  own  word.  By  their  own  confession,  therefore,  they 
have  not  decided  the  case  on  the  law  and  the  evidence. 

It  is  well  known  that  Dr.  Briggs  entered  a  plea  of 
''  not  guilty "  ;  that  he  claims  to  be  orthodox  and  that 
he  subscribes  to  an  orthodox  creed.     But,  in  spite  of  all 


21 

that,  he  has  made  and  persists  in  making  the  statements 
for  which  he  has  been  called  in  question,  and  which  have 
alarmed  the  whole  Church. 

The  question  to  be  determined  is,  whether  or  not  the 
views  of  Dr.  Briggs  can  be  tolerated  under  the  orthodox 
creed  to  which  he  subscribes  ;  and  to  take  his  word  for  it 
is  to  evade  the  whole  issue.  The  explanations  and  dis- 
claimers referred  to  have  not  been  indicated  in  the  ver- 
dict. One  wonders  where  and  what  they  are.  They  are 
certainly  not  competent  evidence.  Dr.  Briggs  has,  in  fact, 
disclaimed  nothing,  but  has  distinctly  reaffirmed  all  the 
views  of  his  Inaugural  Address  of  every  kind. 

Is  it  to  be  expected  that,  if  the  statements  of  Dr.  Briggs 
did  not  relieve  the  minds  of  his  devoted  personal  friends 
in  the  New  York  Presbytery,  they  can  bring  assurance 
and  peace  to  the  Church  ? 

4.  The  lower  judicatory,  in  its  final  judgment,  makes 
also  a  number  of  vague,  misleading  and  contradictory 
statements  which  give  further  evidence  of  mistake  and 
injustice  in  that  judgment. 

It  is  intimated  in  the  verdict  that  the  present  contro- 
versy is  unjustifiable  ;  that  the  principles  at  stake  are  non- 
essential, belonging  with  ''  truths  and  forms  with  regard 
*'  to  which  men  of  good  character  may  differ,"  and  are 
within  the  limits  allowed  under  the  constitution  to 
"  scholarship  and  opinion  ";  and  that  there  has  been  an 
effort  made  to  convict  the  defendant  by   "  inference  and 


22 

*'  implication,"  and  by  the  unfavorable  interpretation  of 
**  ambiguous  expressions." 

Is  it  true  then  that  doctrines  such  as  the  sole  suprem- 
acy of  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  an  authority  in  matters 
of  religion,  their  entire  veracity  and  absolute  trustworthi- 
ness, and  the  question  whether  the  process  of  redemp- 
tion is  confined  to  this  life,  or  is  to  be  extended  to  the 
life  beyond  the  grave,  are  matters  about  which  Presby- 
terian ministers  and  elders  may  differ,  or  mere  matters  of 
opinion  which  the  scholars  of  our  Church  may  adopt  or 
reject  ?  May  one  who  has  assumed  the  ordination  vow 
of  a  Presbyterian  minister  teach  that  the  Church,  as  a 
great  Fountain  of  divine  authority,  can  savingly  en- 
lighten men  and  give  them  religious  certainty  apart  from 
the  Holy  Scripture  ;  that  the  Reason  as  a  great  fountain  of 
divine  authority  can  savingly  enlighten  and  give  religious 
certainty  to  those  who  not  only  reject  the  Scripture,  but 
the  entire  body  of  distinctively  evangelical  truth  ?  May 
he  teach  that  the  process  of  redemption  extends  into  the 
next  world?  It  is  neither  candid  nor  honest  to  evade 
these  questions. 

The  majority  of  Presbytery  hesitate  indeed,  and,  while 
they  acquit,  enter  a  caveat.  They  say  that  "grave 
issues  "  are  involved  in  the  case.  But  if  the  issues  are 
grave,  then  there  must  be  something  more  than  mere 
"  inference,"  "  implication,"  and  non-essential  principles, 
as  to  which  Presbyterian  ministers  may  differ. 


23 

5.  It  Is  further  evident  from  the  language  used  in  the 
final  judgment,  that  the  inferior  judicatory  did  not  make 
a  decision  on  the  merits  of  the  case.  They  declare  it  to 
be  their  ''  earnest  conviction  that  the  grave  issues  involved 
"  in  this  case  will  be  more  wisely  and  justly  determined 
"  by  calm  investigation  and  fraternal  discussion  than  by 
"  judicial  arraignment  and  process."  What  is  this  but  to 
say  that  they  threw  the  case  out  of  Court  for  the  reason 
that  they  have  an  '*  earnest  conviction  against  settling  the 
*'  grave  issues  involved  in  it  by  judicial  arraignment  and 
*'  process  ?  " 

The  Presbytery  was  constituted  a  Court  to  try  the  case 
by  judicial  process,  and  the  acknowledgment  that  the 
members  had  an  ''  earnest  conviction  "  against  determin- 
ing the  issues  involved  in  that  way  amounts  to  a  confes- 
sion on  their  part  that  they  were  disqualified  to  sit  as 
judges.  The  Presbytery  of  New  York,  in  the  first  in- 
stance, decided  that  the  case  was  a  proper  one  for  judicial 
investigation ;  the  General  Assembly  sent  it  back  to 
Presbytery  with  direction  to  try  the  case  on  its  merits, 
and  the  members  of  the  Court  were  solemnly  charged  to 
determine  the  issues  of  the  case  by  judicial  process  ;  if  the 
majority  of  the  lower  Court  were  prepossessed  against 
determining  such  issues  in  that  way,  they  should  have 
withdrawn  from  the  Court  and  thus  have  permitted  the 
case  to  be  tried  by  those  who  believe  in  determining  im- 
portant questions  of  doctrine  by  means  of  judicial  arraign- 
ment and  process,  as  the  constitution  directs. 


24 

But  it  is  certain  that  a  body  having  this  earnest  convic- 
tion against  settling  the  questions  in  dispute  by  judicial 
process,  could  not  give  a  righteous  or  even  intelligent 
judgment  on  the  merits  of  the  case.  The  verdict  is  self- 
contradictory.  In  effect,  the  opinions  of  Dr.  Briggs  are 
declared  to  be  in  harmony  with  the  Scripture  and  the 
Standards,  but  discredit  is  thrown  on  the  judgment  by 
the  refusal  to  approve  the  very  views  which  form  the 
basis  of  the  trial.  Such  a  verdict  is  unjust  to  all  and  can 
do  nothing  to  allay  the  disquietude  which  pervades  the 
Presbyterian  Church. 

We  are  now  to  show  by  an  examination  of  the  merits 
of  the  case,  that  the  final  judgment  rendered  in  it  by  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  is  not  in  harmony  with  the 
Holy  Scripture,  the  Standards,  and  with  the  evidence 
submitted. 

Dr.  Briggs  has  disavowed  nothing.  He  expressly  de- 
clares that  he  holds  firmly  to  all  the  views  contained  in 
the  Inaugural  Address.  He  says  :  "  The  Inaugural  Ad- 
"  dress  was  simply  a  concentration  of  opinions  expressed 
"  more  at  length  in  other  places  and  under  other  circum- 
"  stances.  The  defendant  is  altogether  unconscious  of 
"  any  substantial  change  of  opinion  on  the  subject-matters 
"  of  the  charges  for  many  years.  *  *  *  The  defendant 
"  has  not  asked  for  toleration.  He  claims  his  rights  un- 
"  der  the  constitution  of  his  Church  to  teach  anything 
"  and  everything  that  he  has  ever  taught."  (Defence, 
Preface,  p.  i8.) 


25 

Nor  has  he  made  any  statements  or  explanations  which 
show  the  views,  which  are  the  subject  of  these  charges, 
to  be  in  harmony  with  the  Bible  and  our  Standards. 

The  bare  categorical  replies  by  Dr.  Briggs  to  a  series 
of  questions  put  to  him  by  sympathetic  professors  and 
directors  of  the  Union  Seminary,  neither  explain  or  dis- 
avow anything  ;  for  all  but  one  of  the  questions  are  sus- 
ceptible of  more  than  one  meaning,  and  the  answers  can 
be  made  by  one  holding  the  doctrines  of  Dr.  Brig;;'^s. 
They  give  us  no  more  light  than  does  his  orthodox  sub- 
scription. 

It  is  conceded  freely  and  cheerfully  that  Dr.  Briggs  has 
made  many  orthodox  statements  and  that  he  has  sup- 
ported them  efficiently.  No  accusation  is  made  against 
him  for  these.  But  he  has  been  charged  with  the  propa- 
gation of  views  which  are  believed  to  be  heretical.  For 
these  he  has  been  put  on  trial. 

In  his  Defence,  Dr.  Briggs  made  a  number  of  state- 
ments in  reference  to  the  law  by  which  he  is  to  be  judged, 
which,  if  accepted,  reduce  that  law  as  nearly  as  possible 
to  a  nonentity. 

He  contends  that  the  Court  must  determine  whether 
or  not  the  doctrines  are  essential  to  our  system  ;  but  he 
contends  also  that  the  decision  must  depend  upon  the  ex- 
tent of  the  system  as  understood  by  the  Westminster 
divines,  so  that  in  so  far  as  the  doctrines  of  that  system 
are  differently  understood  now  than  they  were  by  those 


26 

divines,  he  is  not  to  be  tried  by  them.  He  forgets  that 
we  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  opinions  of  the  West- 
minster divines.  If  we  have  to  do  with  any,  we  should 
follow  those  of  the  American  divines,  who  adopted  the 
Presbyterian  Standards  of  1788  as  representative  of  their 
own  views. 

He  maintains  also  that  he  is  not  to  be  tried  by  the  Bible 
except  so  far  as  it  has  been  embodied  and  defined  in  our 
Standards.  But  he  does  not  wish  to  be  tried  by  the 
Standards  except  in  so  far  as  they  can  be  proven  to  be  true 
by  express  statements  of  the  Scripture ;  nor  would  he  be 
tried  by  all  that  part  of  the  Standards  which  is  supported 
by  express  statements  of  Scripture.  The  measuring- 
rod,  according  to  Dr.  Briggs,  must  consist  only  of  those 
doctrines  which  are  stated  in  the  Confession  and  in  both 
of  the  Catechisms.  If  a  doctrine  of  the  Confession  be  not 
restated  in  both  Catechisms,  then  it  is  not  to  enter  into 
consideration  even  though  it  be  shown  to  be  true  from  the 
Holy  Scripture.  This  fencing  about  the  law  gives  the  im- 
pression that  the  defendant  is  conscious  of  inherent  weak- 
ness. 

There  is  no  need  of  hedging  and  fencing.  The  Book 
of  Discipline  gives  the  law  by  which  a  person  is  to  be 
tried  in  our  judicatories.  Sections  3  and  4  tell  us,  "  An 
"  offence  is  anything  in  the  doctrine,  principles  or  practice 
*'  of  a  Church  member,  officer  or  judicatory,  which  is  con- 
"  irary  to  the  Word  of  God  ;  or  which,  if  it  be  not  in  its 
''  own  nature  sinful,  may  tempt  others  to  sin,  or  mar  their 
*'  spiritual  edification.     Nothing    shall,  therefore,  be  the 


27 

''  object  of  judicial  process,  which  cannot  be  proved  to  be 
''  contrary  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  or  to  the  regulations 
*'  and  practice  of  the  Church  founded  thereon.''  It  is 
clear  that  anything  which  can  be  shown  to  be  contrary  to 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  is  an  offence  and  may  be  made  the 
object  of  judicial  process,  even  though  it  be  not  embodied 
or  defined  in  the  Standards  ;  and  in  like  manner  that 
anything  which  can  be  shown  to  be  contrary  to  the 
Standards  is  an  offence  which  may  be  made  the  object  of 
judicial  process,  even  though  it  be  not  supported  by  ex- 
press statements  of  Scripture,  for  the  Standards  accept 
doctrines  derived  from  Scripture  by  necessary  inference. 

The  prosecution  therefore  have  to  prove  the  offence 
either  against  the  Scripture  or  the  Standards  or  against 
both  ;  but  let  it  be  distinctly  observed  that  proof  from 
either  Scripture  or  Standards  alone  is  sufficient  to  estab- 
lish the  offence. 

The  deeree  of  the  offence  and  the  measure  or  kind  of 
discipline  to  be  inflicted  for  it,  are  not  for  us,  but  for  the 
Court  to  determine.  We  have  never  said,  and  do  not  now, 
say  a  word  about  the  kind  o  discipline  which  should  be 
exercised  if  the  offence  were  established  ;  but  we  contend 
that  the  offence  Is  one  which  merits  discipline. 

The  Craighead  case,  to  which  Dr.  Briggs  has  referred, 
was  essentially  different  from  the  one  in  hand  and  does 
not  apply  to  it ;  but  it  is  maintained  by  all  alike  that  if  the 
statements  of  Dr.  Briggs  are  capable  of  two  constructions, 
he  must  have  the  benefit  of  the  more  favorable  construe- 


28 

tion,  should  he  claim  that  as  his,  even  if  the  more  evident 
construction,  is  plainly  heretical ;  and  also  that  he  is"not 
to  be  charged  with  an  opinion  which  he  disavows. 

Fountains  of  Divine  Authority. 

The  first  and  second  charges  refer  to  the  subject  of 
divine  authority  and  may  be  considered  together.  In 
them  he  is  charged  with  teaching  :  ''First,  that  the  Rea- 
"  son  is  a  fountain  of  divine  authority  which  may  and 
"does  savingly  enlighten  men,  even  such  men  as  reject 
*^  the  Scriptures  as  the  authoritative  proclamation  of  the 
"  will  of  God  and  reject  also  the  way  of  salvation  through 
**  the  mediation  and  sacrifice  of  the  Son  of  God  as  re- 
''  vealed  therein."  "  Second,  that  the  Church  is  a  fountain 
"of  divine  authority  which,  apart  from  the  Holy  Scrip- 
"  ture,  may  and  does  savingly  enlighten  men."  We  ask 
you  to  notice  the  statements  contained  in  the  citations 
made  from  the  Inaugural  Address  in  the  specifications 
under  these  charges,  as  amply  justifying  these  charges. 

On  page  24  of  the  Inaugural,  after  having  referred  to 
the  imperfection  and  errancy  of  all  the  forms  of  human 
authority,  he  states  in  definition  of  divine  authority,  "  The 
*'  earnest  spirit  presses  back  of  all  these  human  authorities  in 
''  quest  of  an  Infallible  guide  and  of  an  eternal  and  immutable 
"  certainty.  Probability  might  be  the  guide  of  life  in  the 
''superficial  i8th  century,  and  for  those  who  have  inher- 
"  ited  Its  traditions,  but  the  men  of  the  present  times  are 
'*  in   quest  of  certainty.     Divine    authority    is   the    only 


29 
'<  authority  to  which  man  can  yield  imphcit  obedience, 
"on  which  he  can  rest  in  loving  certainty  and  build 
"  with  joyous  confidence."  '■■  '■■  *  There  are  historically 
three  great  fountains  of  divine  authority— the  Bible,  the 
Church  and  the  Reason." 

The  Bible,  the  Church  and  the  Reason,  then,  are  equal 
in  being  great  fountains  of  divine  authority.  The  quality 
of  diviiTity,  and  the  right  of  divine  authority  belong  alike 
to  all  three  ;  and,  as  such,  each  can  be  to  man  an  infallible 
guide  of  life,  and  speak  to  him  with  eternal  and  immutable 
certainty,  for  he  can  yield  to  each  implicit  obedience, 
rest  on  each  with  loving  certainty  and  build  with  joyous 
confidence. 

It  does  not  in  the  least  relieve  the  matter  to  say  that 
the  Bible  differs  from  the  other  two  fountains  of  divine 
authority  in  being  in  addition  also  an  infallible  rule  of  faith 
and  practice,  for  according  to  Dr.  Briggs'  own  definition, 
the  Church  and  the  Reason,  as  infallible  guides,  can  do 
for  men  precisely  the  same  things  which  the  Bible  does 
for  them  as  an  infallible  rule. 

We  have  to  do  with  the  Church  and  the  Reason.  In 
respect  to  them  Dr.  Briggs  affirms  :  ^rst,  that  they  can 
conduct  men  to  a  saving  acquaintance  with  God  ;  and 
second,  that  they  can  give  to  men  immutable  certainty  or 
assurance  in  matter  of  religion.  Martineau  and  the 
rationalists  are  examples  for  the  Reason.  Newman  and 
the  Churchman  for  the  Church. 


30 

'•  Newman  could  not  reach  certainty  through  the  Bible, 
"  striving  never  so  hard.''  He  and  the  majority  of  Chris- 
tians from  the  apostolic  age  have  found  God  through  the 
Church.  ''  Martyrs  and  saints,  fathers  and  schoolmen, 
''  the  profoundest  intellects,  the  saintliest  lives,  have 
''  had  this  experience.  Institutional  Christianity  has 
"  been  to  them  the  presence-chamber  of  God."  Dr. 
Briggs  affirms  this  to  be  true  categorically,  although,  he 
remarks  :  *'  It  is  difficult  for  many  Protestants  to  regard 
''  this  experience  as  any  other  than  pious  illusion  and  de- 
*'  lusion.''     (Inaugural,  p.  25.) 

'' Martineau  could  not  find  divine  authority  in  the 
"  Church  or  the  Bible,  but  he  did  find  God  enthroned  in 
"  his  own  soul.''  (Inaugural,  p.  27.)  To  him  and  the 
rationalists,  the  Reason  is  the  Holy  of  Holies  of  human 
nature,  in  which  God  presents  Himself  to  those  who  seek 
Him.  (Inaugural,  p.  26.)  And  therefore,  although  it  is 
well  known  that  they  reject  the  Scriptures  as  the  authorita- 
tive proclamation  of  the  will  of  God  and  the  way  of 
salvation  through  the  mediation  and  sacrifice  of  the  Son 
of  God  as  revealed  therein,  Dr.  Briggs  nevertheless 
would  not  "refuse  these  Rationalists  a  place  in  the 
"  company  of  the  faithful."     (Inaugural,  p.  27). 

That  Dr.  Briggs  conceives  of  each  one  of  the  three 
fountains  of  divine  authority  as  capable  of  imparting  a 
saving  knowledge  of  God  is  evident  from  his  own  state- 
ments on  the  subject.  He  says  :  ''  Unless  God's  authority 
"  is  discerned  in  the  forms  of  the  Reason,  there  is  no  ground 
"  upon  which  any  of  the  heathen  could  ever  have  been 


31 

*'  saved,  for  they  know  nothing  of  Bible  or  Church.  If 
**  they  are  not  savingly  enlightened  by  the  light  of  the 
"  World  in  the  forms  of  the  Reason  the  whole  heathen 
"  world  is  lost  forever."  (Inaug.,  2d  ed.,  pp.  88,  89.) 
The  divine  authority  in  the  Reason  therefore  does  sav- 
ingly enlighten  men  in  the  view  of  Dr.  Briggs. 

Again  he  says :  "  Spurgeon  is  an  example  of  the 
"average  modern  Evangelical,  who  holds  the  Protestant 
•'  position  and  assails  the  Church  and  Reason  in  the  in- 
*'terest  of  the  authority  of  Scripture.  But  the  average 
"  opinion  of  the  Christian  world  would  not  assign  him  a 
''  higher  place  in  the  Kingdom  of  God  than  Martineau  or 
**  Newman.  May  we  not  conclude  on  the  whole,  that 
*' these  three  representative  Christians  of  our  time,  living 
''in  or  near  the  world's  metropolis,  have,  each  in  his  way, 
''found  God  and  rested  on  Divine  authority  ?  '•'  ''-''  * 
*'  Men  are  influenced  by  their  temperaments  and  environ- 
"  ments  which  of  the  three  ways  of  access  to  God  they 
"may  pursue."  (Inaugural,  p.  28.)  Here  Dr.  Briggs  not 
only  teaches  that  men  may  and  do  find  God  savingly 
through  any  one  of  the  three  fountains  of  divine  authority, 
but  admits  that  the  Bible,  as  the  only  way  for  obtaining  sal- 
vation and  certainty,  as  held  by  Spurgeon,  is  the  Pro- 
testant doctrine.  And  therefore,  since  the  Presbyterian 
Church  is  a  Protestant  Church,  he  convicts  himself  of 
teaching  doctrines  which  are  not  Presbyterian. 

The    labored    argument    made    by    Dr.  Briggs    in   his 
Defence  to  show  that  according  to  the  teaching  of  both 


32 

the  Bible  and  the  Standards,  the  Church  and  the  Reason 
are  great  fountains  of  divine  authority,  is  wide  of  the 
mark  and  wholly  unsuccessful. 

The  facts  that  God  can  give  evidence  of  himself  to 
man's  soul  and  that  man  has  the  power  of  verifying  truth, 
that  he  can  receive  communications  from  God,  and  be 
the  subject  of  gracious  influences,  show  that  as  created  in 
the  image  of  God,  man  is  endowed  with  a  moral  and 
rational  nature,  but  does  not  at  all  prove  that  his  reason 
is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority. 

The  Church,  as  shown  by  the  citations  which  Dr.  Briggs 
made  from  the  Standards,  has  no  authority  except  such 
as  Christ  has  delegated  to  it,  and  prescribed  for  it  in  his 
word.  The  Church  is  guilty  of  usurpation  whenever  it 
attempts  to  exercise  authority  not  so  delegated  or  pre- 
scribed, so  that  it  may  become  a  curse  instead  of  a 
blessing,  as  abundantly  shown  in  the  history  of  the  Church. 

Christ  is  supreme  in  the  Church  and  in  all  matters  of 
faith  and  life.  But  we  know  nothing  about  Him,  except 
through  the  Bible  story.  The  truth  by  means  of  which 
He  saves  and  assures  His  people  is  treasured  up  in  the 
Scriptures,  so  that  we  are  shut  up  to  them,  both  for  a 
saving  knowledge  of  God  and  for  assurance.  The  Bible 
alone  tells  us  what  we  need  to  know  about  God,  ourselves, 
the  plan  of  salvation,  our  duty  and  the  conditions  of  eter- 
nal life  and  destiny.  For  this  reason,  the  Bible  alone,  as 
against  the  Church  and  Reason,  gives  light  in  the  moral 
and  spiritual  realm.     It  is  a  light  to  man's  pathway  and  a 


33 

lamp  to  his  feet,  by  which  he  discovers  his  way  through 
the  darkness  of  this  world  to  the  world  of  eternal  light. 
The  Bible  is  as  the  bread  of  God  to  give  life  to  men's 
souls,  for  man  shall  live  by  every  word  that  proceedeth 
out  of  the  mouth  of  God.  The  Church  is  constituted  of 
errant  men  and  women  only  partially  sanctified,  and  the 
Reason,  unless  enlightened  by  the  word  of  God,  gropes  in 
the  darkness  of  sin.  Neither  has  power  to  enlighten, 
assure  and  quicken  a  human  soul,  but  light  and  life  come 
from  the  Holy  Scriptures  to  believing  hearts,  for  in  them 
the  Holy  Spirit  speaks  with  divine  love  and  power. 

In  harmony  with  all  evangelical  Protestants,  Presby- 
terians believe  that  salvation  and  assurance  are  obtained 
through  belief  of  truth  revealed  in  the  Holy  Scripture  ; 
they  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that,  since  the  Holy  Spirit 
bears  witness  by  and  with  the  word  of  this  blessed  book 
which  has  expressly  set  down  in  it  the  whole  counsel  of 
God  concerning  all  things  necessary  for  His  own  glory, 
man's  salvation,  faith  and  life,  men  who  tell  us  they  can- 
not find  God  and  certainty  in  these  Holy  Scriptures  are, 
as  those  Scriptures  declare,  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins. 

The  Scripture  expressly  declares  that  men  by  wisdom, 
that  is  through  the  forms  of  the  Reason,  have  not  known 
God.  History  shows  that  to  be  absolutely  true.  Reason, 
unaided  by  revealed  truth,  has  never  been  able  to  bring 
man  out  of  the  bondage  of  sin  to  God.  And,  therefore, 
''  it  pleased  God  by  the  foolishness  of  preaching  to  save 
"  them  that  believe."    God  begets  men  to  a  new  life  by  the 


34 

word  of  truth  and  saves  them  by  the  behef  of  that  truth, 
"  for  how  shall  they  believe  on  Him  of  whom  they  have 
"  not  heard  and  how  shall  they  hear  without  a  preacher  ?" 
(Rom.  lo  ;    14.) 

Any  discussion  in  respect  to  the  salvation  of  infants,  in- 
capables  and  exceptional  cases  of  heathen,  through  the 
working  of  the  Spirit,  is  immaterial  here — no  question  is 
raised  in  the  charges  in  reference  to  them.  The  matter 
in  hand  is  wholly  different.  Can  one  having  the  Bible  and 
rejecting  it  find  the  way  to  God  through  either  Church  or 
Reason  ?  The  Bible  teaches  that  those  possessing  the 
revealed  truth  which  it  contains  are  saved  through  belief 
in  that  truth,  and  not  otherwise.  The  Holy  Spirit  has 
given  the  Bible  to  enlighten  men  savingly,  and  it  is  hardly 
to  be  supposed  that  He  will  enlighten  in  other  ways  those 
who  reject  the  Holy  Scripture,  or  find  it  an  unsatisfactory 
source  of  comfort.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Church  and 
Reason,  apart  from  the  Bible,  by  which  the  Spirit  can 
savingly  enlighten  men.  He  bears  witness  by  and  with 
the  Word  in  the  hearts  of  those  who  believe  unto  salvation. 
Albert  Barnes  states  very  truly  on  i  Peter,  1:23:  "  It  is 
"  the  uniform  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  that  divine  truth 
"  is  made  the  instrument  of  quickening  the  soul  unto 
"  spiritual  life." 

The  same  is  true  in  reference  to  the  question  of  cer- 
tainty. Assurance  stands  solely  on  the  truth  of  Scripture, 
on  God's  promises.  Christian  assurance,  resting  on  a  firm 
belief  in  doctrines  respecting   Christ  and  salvation,  must 


So 

stand  or  fall  with  faith  in  Scripture's  truth.  It  is  absurd  to 
suppose,  and  dangerous  to  teach,  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
would  give  this  assurance  through  Church  or  Reason  to 
those  who  either  reject  or  turn  away  from  the  Holy 
Scripture.  As  Albert  Barnes  states  in  2  Thess.,  2:13: 
''  No  one  who  is  not  a  believer  in  the  truth  can  have 
"  evidence  that  God  has  chosen  him." 

That  the  Holy  Scriptures  claim  for  themselves  supreme 
authority  in  matters  of  faith  and  life  is  indicated  by  texts 
which  we  have  cited  in  connection  with  these  two  charo-es 

o 

and  their  specifications.  These  texts  are  to  be  taken  in 
their  obvious  meaning,  and  not  in  the  strained  interpreta- 
tion which  Dr.  Briggs  puts  upon  them. 

Christ  and  the  New  Testament  writers  invariably  appeal 
to  the  Holy  Scripture  as  the  ultimate  authority  for  the 
settlement  of  all  religious  and  moral  questions.  ''//  is 
"  written  "  was  with  them  a  final  settlement,  since  for  them 
God  speaks  in  what  is  written.  Christ  convicted  the 
rationalistic  Sadducees  of  error  respecting  the  resurrection, 
and  the  churchly  Pharisees  of  error  respecting  divorce,  due 
in  each  case  to  ignorance  of  the  Scriptures.  (Mt.  22  : 
29;    19:   3-6.) 

With  Christ  and  the  Apostles  the  Bible  alone  held  the 
place  of  absolute  and  final  authority.  They  never  ap- 
pealed to  either  Church  or  Reason,  but  brought  both 
Church  and  Reason  to  the  bar  of  Scripture  for  judgment 
and  lieht. 


36 

In  harmony  with  this  truth  of  Scripture,  our  Standards 
as  cited  by  us  affirm  that  "  the  whole  counsel  of  God 
''  concerning  all  things  necessary  for  His  own  glory  and 
"  man's  salvation,  faith  and  life,  is  either  expressly  set 
"  down  in  Scripture,  or  by  good  and  necessary  con- 
"  sequence  maybe  deduced  from  Scripture,"  so  that  all 
who  will  may  become  savingly  acquainted  with  God  and 
gain  assurance  of  his  love  ;  that  the  Holy  Scripture  is 
*'  most  necessary''  as  it  makes  the  full  discovery  of  the 
"  ^^/y  z£/<2j)/ "  of  man's  salvation,  the  Holy  Spirit  bearing 
witness  '*  by  and  with  the  word''  in  the  heart  for  the  con- 
version and  comfort  of  the  soul ;  and  that  all  matters  of 
religion  are  to  be  authoritatively  settled  by  an  appeal  to 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  since  the  Holy  Spirit  speaks  in  them 
as  the  "  Supreme  Judge." 

Dr.  Briggs'  teachings  conflict  with  both  Scripture  and 
the  Standards.  They  touch  matters  which  are  vitally 
essential  to  Presbyterians,  whose  faith  and  practice  are 
based  solely  on  the  authority  of  Holy  Scripture. 

According  to  these  views  we  must  recognize  the  Church 
of  Rome  as  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority,  able  to 
give  men,  without  or  above  the  Bible,  a  saving  knowl- 
edee  of  God  and  divine  assurance.  This  would  be  a 
complete  abandonment  of  the  Reformation  position  ;  and 
for  the  Presbyterian  Church  it  would  mean  denomina- 
tional suicide.  Whether  or  not  Dr.  Briggs  would  regard 
this  as  in  any  sense  a  calamity,  cannot  be  determined 
with  certainty,  for  he  regards  it  to  be  the  duty  of  the 


37 

hour,  in  the  interest  of  the  broadest  comprehension, 
to  destroy  all  denominational  barriers  which  separate 
Protestants,  and  to  form  an  "  alliance  between  Protest- 
''  antism  and  Romanism  and  all  other  branches  of  Chris- 
"  tendom."     (Whither,  p.  XI.) 

The  positions  taken  in  his  Inaugural  certainly  en- 
title him  to  the  dignity  of  chief  Apostle  in  such  a  move- 
ment. 

Dr.  Briggs'  teachings  respecting  the  Reason  are  even 
worse  than  those  respecting  the  Church.  In  referring  to 
Martineau  as  an  illustration,  he  has  made  his  meaning 
unmistakable.  Martineau 's  late  work  shows  that  he  re- 
jects the  entire  Bible  as  a  revelation  from  God,  and  all 
the  distinctive  doctrines  of  grace,  rejects  Christ  Himself 
as  Lord  and  Saviour,  and  consigns  the  account  of  His  In- 
carnation, Resurrection  and  other  miraculous  events  to 
the  wonders  of  an  invented  Messianic  Mythology  or  pop- 
ular apotheosis.  The  Bible  states  :  "  That  if  thou  shalt 
"  confess  with  thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  shalt  be- 
"  lieve  in  thy  heart  that  God  hath  raised  Him  from  the 
''  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved."  (Rom.  lo:  9.)  Christ  de- 
clared :  "  If  ye  believe  not  that  I  am  He,  ye  shall  die  in 
"  your  sins."  (Jno.  8  :  24.)  '*  Whosoever  shall  deny 
"  Me  before  men,  him  will  I  also  deny  before  my  Father 
**  which  is  in  Heaven."  (Mt.  10  :  33.)  ''  No  man  cometh 
"  to  the  Father  but  by  Me."  (Jno.  14  :  61.)  Martineau, 
therefore,  in  refusing  to  believe  in  the  resurrection  of 
Christ,  and  in  rejecting  the  Saviour,  puts  himself  among 


38 

those  to  whom  Christ  and  the  Scripture  deny  salvation. 
Yet  Dr.  Briggs,  with  a  full  knowledge  of  these  facts, 
states,  in  his  Defence  :  ''It  is  plain  to  me  that  Martineau 
"  has  orained  a  higher  sta^re  of  Christian  freedom  and 
"  direct  communion  with  God,  and  it  is  immaterial  how 
"  he  gained  it."     (Defence  p.  67.) 

If  men  of  that  type  are  to  be  heralded  as  representative 
Christian  men,  if  after  rejecting  Christ  and  the  Scripture, 
they  have  entered  into  friendly  communion  with  God  and 
obtained  divine  assurance  through  the  forms  of  the 
Reason,  then  our  entire  Church  Hfe  and  activity  is  a  mis- 
take and  of  all  men  we  are  most  miserable.  It  would  be 
wise  to  close  our  Churches  and  Theological  Seminaries 
and  to  devote  our  money  to  causes  better  adapted  to 
human  advancement  than  Home  and  Foreign  Missions 
can  be. 

Surely  it  is  clear  that  the  final  judgment  of  the  New 
York  Presbytery  on  the  first  and  second  charges,  is  not 
in  accordance  with  the  law  and  evidence  in  the  case,  and 
that  it  should  be  reversed. 

The  Truthfulness  of  the  Bible. 
The  third  charge  has  reference  to  the  subject  of  inspira- 
tion. In  it  Dr.  Briggs  is  charged  with  teaching  that 
errors  may  have  existed  in  the  original  text  of  Scripture, 
as  it  came  from  its  authors.  Dr.  Briggs  admits  the  cor- 
rectness of  the  facts  cited  in  the  specifications,  and  that 
the  charge  correctly  states  his  teaching  on  this  point, 
but  denies  that  it  is  an  offence. 


39 

Our  Standards  assert  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  the 
Word  of  God  ;  therefore  to  say  that  there  may  have  been 
errors  in  the  original  text,  is  to  assert  that  God  may  have 
put  into  that  text  that  which  is  not  true. 

Dr.  Briggs'  view  of  inspiration  does  not  give  assurance 
of  entire  truthfulness  in  the  genuine  text  of  the  Holy 
Scripture.  On  the  contrary,  it  enables  him  to  teach,  as 
we  shall  show  from  the  evidence  submitted,  that  the  oren- 
uine  text  of  the  Bible  contains  errors. 

It  is  in  evidence  that  Dr.  Briggs  maintains  three  prop- 
ositions in  regard  to  the  Holy  Scripture  which,  if  true, 
render  not  merely  possible,  but  even  quite  certain,  that 
errors  pervade  its  contents.  They  are  vitally  connected 
with  his  view  on  this  question. 

1.  He  contends  that  instead  of  saying  the  Scriptures 
are  the  Word  of  God,  the  true  statement  is,  that  they 
"  contain''  the  Word  of  God,  using  that  expression  not 
in  the  Shorter  Catechism  sense  which  is  equivalent  to  the 
statement  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  Word  of  God,  but 
in  the  sense,  that  some  parts  of  their  contents  are  not  the 
Word  of  God.  (The  Bible,  the  Church  and  the  Reason, 
p.  99). 

2.  He  makes  the  anti-confessional  statement  that  there 
are  in  the  Holy  Scripture  certain  circumstantial  and  non- 
essential elements  which,  whether  inspired  or  not, 
are  pervaded  by  errors.  (Inaugural,  pp.  36,  36.) 
In    our    Standards    some    portions    of    the     Bible    are 


40 

regarded  as  more  important  than  others  ;    but  all  alike 
are  regarded  as  truly  inspired  and  entirely  truthful. 

3.  He  affirms  that  not  the  language  of  the  Bible  but 
the  concept  or  thought  conveyed  by  the  language  is  in- 
spired.    (Inaugural,  pp.  31,  32.) 

In  his  view  "  we  cannot  term  the  providential  care  of 
"  God  over  the  exter7ial production  of  His  Word  "  inspi- 
ration.    (Inaugural,  pp.  31,  32.     BibHcal  Study,  p.  161.) 

Thus  the  entire  text  of  the  Bible  from  beginning  to  end 
is  exclusively  of  human  and  not  of  divine  origin.  It  is 
the  human  setting  in  which  the  ''  divine  jewel  "  of  the 
substance  of  the  thought  or  the  concept  is  held.  The 
writers  of  the  Bible  received  concepts  of  divine  truth 
which  they  were  left  to  dress  up  in  human  language.  The 
Bible  is  therefore  only  the  fallible  expression  of  divine 
truth  of  which  the  concepts  were  imparted  to  the  writers 
by  God.  As  no  one  has  ever  seen  or  known  those  con- 
cepts in  their  naked  reality,  we  can  never  be  entirely  cer- 
tain, according  to  Dr.  Briggs,  that  the  human  authors  of 
the  Bible  received  anything  more  than  a  fallible  impression 
of  the  truth.  At  all  events,  if  the  divine  inspiration  did  not 
extend  to  the  language  of  the  Bible  then  the  revelation 
which  God  made  to  the  writers  perished  with  them.  The 
record  of  that  revelation  at  least  is  only  human  and  fallible 
and  the  Scriptures  are  but  the  human  account  of  the  Word 
of  God — not  that  Word  itself.  If  so  the  Bible  is  only  one 
of  the  many  good  books  which  contain  divine  truth,  and 


41 

is  not  the  Book  of  books,  which  Christians  have  always 
considered  it  to  be. 

Holding  such  views,  Dr.  Briggs  naturally  enough 
teaches  that  the  genuine  text  of  Scripture  may  contain 
errors  and  he  need  find  no  difficulty  in  holding  that  it 
must  contain  errors  since  nothing  human  is  free  from 
error. 

So  after  having  pointed  out  a  number  of  cases  of 
what  he  regards  as  biblical  errors,  Dr.  Briggs  states 
(Defence,  p.  114),  "The  number  of  such  instances  as  I 
"  have  given  above  might  be  increased  to  an  indefinite 
*' extent,  extending  over  a  large  part  of  the  Old  Testa- 
*'  ment  and  the  New  Testament." 

Dr.  Briees  teaches  then  that  the  number  of  errors  in 
the  Bible  extending  over  large  parts  of  both  Testaments, 
is  very  great,  and  the  connection  clearly  shows  that  he 
holds  those  errors  to  be  in  the  genuine  text  of  Scripture. 
This  conclusion  is  supported  by  the  evidence  in  the  case, 
for  he  states,  in  The  Bible,  the  Church  and  the  Reason  : 
''These  human  features  render  it  improbable  that  the 
"  Bible  should  be  free  from  errors  in  its  human  setting.  '''''  '-'' 
"  How  could  it  be  otherwise  if  the  divine  revelation  was 
"to  come  throueh  such  men  as  the  ancient  times  were 
*'  capable  of  producing  ?  Holy  Scripture  does  not  claim 
*' inerrancy  in  its  human  setting,  and  it  does  not  in  fact 
"possess  it."  (p.  108.)  Further  on  he  states:  ''The 
'*  Evaneelist  seems  to  have  overlooked  the  fact  that  one 
"  of  these  passages  is  from  Malachi  3:1.     Here  are  two 


42 

^' slips  of  memory  on  the  part  of  the  Evangelists,  such 
''as  any  writer  is  liable  to  make."  (The  Bible,  the 
Church  and  the  Reason,  p.  109.) 

It  will  be  conceded  that  what  the  Evangelists  wrote 
belonged  to  the  genuine  text  of  Scripture,  yet,  according 
to  Dr.  Briggs,  such  a  text  is  marred  by  errors  of  memory. 
It  is  clear  that  inspiration,  as  understood  by  Dr.  Briggs, 
did  not  keep  the  writers  of  the  Bible  from  making  such 
errors  ''  as  other  men  are  liable  to  make." 

This  doctrine  of  Dr.  Briggs  conflicts  irreconcilably  with 
the  doctrine  respecting  the  Holy  Scripture  as  formulated 
in  the  Standards  of  our  Church.  There  it  is  affirmed  that 
the  writings,  not  the  concept  merely,  were  inspired 
throughout,  and  that  they  are  entirely  truthful  for  the 
reason  that  they  are  inspired. 

In  regard  to  the  text  of  the  Bible,  as  we  have  it,  the 
Confession  makes  mention  of  the  marvelous  fact  that  by 
God's  "  singular  care  and  providence  "  it  has  been  "  kept 
"  pure  in  all  ages  ";  but  of  the  genuine  text  it  affirms  that 
"  the  Old  Testament  in  Hebrew,  and  the  New  Testament 
"in  Greek  were  immediately  inspired  by  God!'  Of  the 
one,  as  cared  for  by  the  singular  providence  of  God  it 
affirms  relative  accuracy,  for  the  general  providential  care 
of  God  does  keep  men  from  all  error  ;  but  of  the  other, 
as  coming  immediately  from  God,  it  asserts  absolute 
accuracy,  as  we  shall  see. 

The  Confession  states  that  the  Scripture,  in  its  genuine 
text,  was  committed  "  wholly  unto  writing"  by  the  Lord 


43 

Himself,  so  that  the  entire  series  of  canonical  books  con- 
stitute the  one  "  Holy  Scripture,"  or  "  the  Word  of  God 
"  written,"  having  all  of  them  been  "  given  by  inspiration 
*'  of  God  to  be  the  rule  of  faith  and  life."  And  it  further 
declares  that  ^'the  authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  for 
"which  It  ought  to  be  believed  and  obeyed,  dependeth 
"  wholly  upon  God  (who  Is  truth  Itself)  the  author  thereof; 
**  and  therefore  it  is  to  be  received,  because  it  Is  the  word 
'*  of  God."  And  this  declaration  Is  made  In  reference  to 
the  entire  written  contents  of  all  the  canonical  books. 
The  books  were  written  by  men,  yet  the  God  of  truth 
Is  In  such  a  deep  sense  their  author,  that  everything 
written  therein  Is  to  be  received,  believed  and  obeyed 
because  it  Is  His  word.  A  statement  so  sweeping  and 
solemn  could  not  be  made  If  the  Scriptures  were  only 
partially  Inspired  and  were  mixed  with  error.  But  that 
the  Confession  does  not  tolerate  the  Idea  of  the  presence 
of  errors  In  the  Holy  Scripture  Is  still  further  evident 
from  the  fact  that  the  *' entire  perfection  "  of  the  Scripture 
is  given  as  proof  that  it  Is  the  word  of  God,  while  the 
assertion  is  made  that  the  Holy  Spirit  assures  the  believer 
of  the  "  infallible  truth  and  divine  authority  thereof.'' 
A  book  which  contains  errors  cannot  have  the  quality 
of  "  entire  perfection  "  and  the  Holy  Spirit  could  not 
assure  us  of  Its  "  Infallible  truth."  Our  Standards  teach 
the  truthfulness  of  the  entire  written  Bible  because  It  is 
the  "very  word"  of  the  God  of  truth. 

This  Is  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Scripture  itself.     That 
Scripture    claims    full    inspiration    throughout    for    both 


44 

matter  and  form.  If  the  inspiration  stopped  in  the 
writer  and  did  not  extend  through  him  to  the  language,  then 
are  the  writings  themselves  not  inspired  and  we  have  no 
Holy  Scripture. 

But  the  Bible  affirms  inspiration  of  the  language  as  well 
as  of  the  thought.  '-All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration 
"of  God,''  not  merely  the  substance  of  truth,  but  the 
Scripture  or  writing  itself.  And  it  matters  not  whether 
we  take  the  rendering  of  the  Revised  Version,  "  every 
^'Scripture''  or  the  ''all  Scripture''  of  the  Authorized 
Version,  for  the  word  Scripture  was  used  only  of  inspired 
writings,  and  we  must  take  it  in  the  obvious  sense  in 
which  Paul  employed  it.  There  can  be  no  question  that 
he  meant  the  entire  Old  Testament,  all  of  which  Timothy 
had  known  from  his  childhood,  and  recognized  as  en- 
tirely God-inspired. 

Again  the  Scripture  states  that  "God,  who  at  sundry 
''  times  and  in  divers  manners  spake  in  time  past  unto 
'*  the  fathers  by  the  prophets,  hath  in  these  last  days 
''  spoken  to  us  by  His  Son.''  (Heb.  i  :  1,2.)  God,  then, 
did  not  speak  merely  to  the  prophets  and  His  Son,  but  by 
them,  through  them,  to  men.  He  not  only  revealed  truth  to 
them,  but  controlled  their  language  in  conveying  the  truth. 
It  is  also  evident  that  what^God  delivered  by  the  prophets 
is  put  on  an  equality  with  what  He  spake  "  to  us  by  His 
"  Son."  It  is  all  His  Word  commended  to  our  faith  by 
the  same  divine  authority.  The  entire  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  carries  out  this  idea  that  the  statements  of 
Scripture  are  the  sayings  of  God. 


45 

Peter  and  Paul  unite  in  affirmino-  that  both  the  thouofht 
and  language  of  the  Scripture  are  inspired  :  "  The  prophecy 
"  came  not  in  the  old  time  by  the  will  of  man  ;  but  holy 
"  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
"  Ghost.''     (2  Pet.  I  :  21.) 

Paul  declares  :  "  Now  we  have  received,  not  the  spirit 
"  of  the  world,  but  the  Spirit  which  is  of  God  ;  that  we 
''  might  know  the  things  which  are  freely  given  to  us  of 
"  God.  Which  things  also  we  speak,  no^  in  words  which 
"  mans  wisdom  teacheth^  but  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
"  teachethy  It  is  then  the  positive  teaching  of  the 
Scriptures  themselves  that  their  entire  contents  are  in- 
spired, both  in  respect  to  matter  and  form. 

In  the  New  Testament,  a  large  number  of  quotations 
from  the  Old  Testament  are  attributed  to  God  or  the  Holy 
Spirit,  even  when  the  Old  Testament  text  does  not  repre- 
sent them  as  the  speakers.  Even  narrative  parts  are  in 
this  way  attributed  directly  to  God.  Mt.  i  :  22  ;  2  :  i5  ; 
Acts  4  :  25  ;  13  :  34  ;  Rom.  1:2;  Acts  1:16;  28  :  25  ; 
Heb.  3:7;    4:7;    9  •  S  ;    10  :  15,  etc. 

In  many  places  the  phrases,  ''it  is  zuritten^'  and 
"  the  Scripture  saith,^^  are  used  as  equivalent  to  what  God 
says.  The  human  authorship  is  not  excluded.  The 
Scripture  is  the  joint  product  of  a  human  and  divine 
authorship  ;  but  infinite  knowledge  pervades  the  whole 
Scripture,  and  the  human  authorship  was  so  under  the 
control  of  the  divine  that  the  entire  Scripture  bears  the 
stamp  of  divine  authority  and  is  absolutely  reliable. 


46 

Writers  of  the  most  advanced  school  of  Theology  admit 
that  the  authors  of  Scripture  claim  inspiration  for  the  Holy 
Writings  as  such  and  not  merely  for  the  substance  of 
truth  contained  in  them.  Richard  Rothe,  quoted  in  my 
argument  before  the  Presbytery,  is  an  example.  He  says 
of  the  New  Testament  writers  :  "They  see  nothing  in  the 
'*  sacred  volume  which  is  simply  the  word  of  its  human 
''  author,  and  not  at  the  same  time  the  very  word  of  God 
"Himself.  *  '•'  *  They  refer  the  prophetic  inspiration 
"  to  the  achis  scribendi  of  the  biblical  authors." 

The  biblical  writers  also  teach  the  entire  truthfulness  of 
the  Holy  Scripture  for  the  reason  that  it  is  fully  inspired. 
It  is  impossible  for  God  to  lie.  Everywhere  this  is 
assumed  and  arguments  are  enforced  on  it  as  the  basis. 
Paul  supports  an  important  Christological  argument  in 
Gal.  3:16,  on  the  fact  that  the  singular  instead  of  the 
plural  number  of  a  word  is  used  in  the  Old  Testament. 
The  Word  of  God  "  is  true  from  the  beginning."  Christ 
declared  to  God  in  prayer,  *'Thy  word  is  truth,"  and 
affirmed,  ''Till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one 
''  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law,  till  all  be  ful- 
''  filled.''  (Mt.  5  :  18).  He  based  the  fact  that  a  certain 
statement  had  been  made  in  the  olden  time  on  the  abso- 
lute infallibility  of  the  record  of  the  Scripture,  in  which  it 
is  reported,  when  He  said  :  "Is  it  not  written  in  your 
*'  law,  I  said,  Ye  are  gods  ?  If  he  called  them  gods,  unto 
"  whom  the  word  of  God  came,  and  the  Scripture  ca^inot 
*'  be  broken  J'     According,  then,  to  the  infallible  opinion  of 


47 

Jesus  Christ,  absolute  truthfulness  of  any  sentence  or 
statement  is  proved  if  it  be  a  constituent  part  of  the 
Scripture.  Christ  and  the  Apostles  teach  therefore  the 
inerrancy  of  the  entire  written  Word  of  God.  Not  an 
utterance  did  they  make  which  can  warrant  the  belief  on 
our  part  that  they  thought  the  Holy  Scriptures  tainted 
with  errors.  They  referred  to  them  always  as  absolutely 
true,  and  taught  that  disbelief  in  them  Is  sin. 

The  full  inspiration  and  the  entire  truthfulness  of  the 
written  Scripture  Is  therefore  a  doctrine  which  is  clearly 
taucrht  In  the  Bible  itself,  and  is  to  be  received,  like  all 
other  biblical  doctrines,  for  the  reason  that  the  Holy 
Scripture  teaches  it.  The  doctrine  is  obtained  from 
Scripture  by  application  of  the  strictest  principles  of 
exegesis  and  by  the  broadest  induction  from  all  the  rele- 
vant facts,  statements,  claims  and  allusions  of  the  Scripture 
in  reference  to  the  subject ;  it  is  supported  by  the  entire 
evidence  showing  the  New  Testament  writers  to  be  trust- 
worthy teachers  of  Christian  doctrine.  Ultimately  this 
evidence  rests  on  the  authority  and  trustworthiness  of 
Christ  Himself,  for  He  refers  us  to  them  for  His  statement 
of  doctrine,  assuring  us  that  He  fitted  the  writers  by 
giving  them  the  Spirit  of  truth,  to  guide  them  into  all  truth 
and  to  teach  them  whatsoever  He  desired  them  to  com- 
municate. 

This  doctrine  of  the  truthfulness  of  the  Scriptures  due 
to  their  full  inspiration,  as  taught  in  the  Bible,  has  been 
held  by  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  from  New  Testament 


48 

times  until  now.  Dr.  Briggs  has  misunderstood  the  faith 
of  the  Church  on  this  point.  All  the  great  historic  names 
which  he  has  cited  in  favor  of  an  errant  Bible  are  on 
record  in  defence  of  the  opposite  doctrine.  Origen, 
Jerome,  Augustine,  Calvin,  Luther,  Baxter  and  the  West- 
minster divines  have  left  their  testimony  that  the  whole 
Bible  is  the  inerrant  word  of  God. 

It  is  preposterous  at  this  late  day  to  advance  the 
claim  that  insisting  on  the  truthfulness  of  the  Bible  is 
tantamount  to  setting  up  a  new  test  of  orthodoxy.  The 
Church  has  never  believed  anything  else.  Especially  is 
this  true  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  It  will  not  be 
possible  to  point  to  a  single  representative  Presbyterian 
divine,  from  the  Westminster  period  down,  and  especially 
among  American  Presbyterians,  who  has  taught  the  doc- 
trine of  the  errancy  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  All  sides, 
parties  and  schools  in  our  Church  have  been  agreed  in 
affirming  the  inerrancy  of  the  Word  of  God.  Green, 
Alexander  and  Hodge  cordially  unite  with  Richards  and 
Barnes  in  subscribing  to  the  statement  of  Dr.  Henry  B. 
Smith  that  inspiration  extends  to  both  thoughts  and 
words  and  gives  us  ''  truth  without  error  "  in  the  Bible. 
Our  Church  has  always  held  that,  when  we  have  deter- 
mined the  exact  historic-grammatical  meaning  of  a  state- 
ment in  the  Bible,  we  have  then  the  absolute  truthfulness 
of  that  statement  certified  to  us  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 

The  issue  before  this  Assembly  is  whether  or  not  the 
Presbyterian  Church  will  abandon  the  historic  faith  of  the 


49 

Church  of  Jesus  Christ  and  affix  Its  imprimatur  to  the 
doctrine  that  the  Bible  is  permeated  with  errors  to  "an 
"  indefinite  extent.'' 

To  sum  up,  the  teaching  of  Dr.  Briggs  in  this  matter 
constitutes  an  offence  as  defined  in  the  Book  of  DiscipHne, 
for  several  reasons  : 

1.  It  conflicts  with  the  teaching  of  both  Scripture  and 
Confession. 

2.  If  this  teaching  be  true,  the  Holy  Scripture  can- 
not be  an  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  since,  ac- 
cording to  it,  we  cannot  say  the  Bible  is  the  Word  of 
God,  but  only  that  it  contains  the  Word  of  God.  Webster 
defines  the  word  infallible  as  ''  not  fallible  ;  not  capable  of 
*'  erring  ;  entirely  exempt  from  liability  to  mistake  ;  un- 
''  erring  ;  inerrable."  In  plain  English,  therefore,  a  book 
which  is  pervaded  by  errors  "to  an  indefinite  extent," 
cannot  be  an  infallible  rule.  It  lacks  the  one  essential 
of  infallibility,  viz.,  absolute  truthfulness  for  all  its 
contents. 

3.  This  teaching  subjects  the  Bible  to  the  reason.  For 
if  the  Scripture  has  any  erroneous  circumstantials,  and  if 
the  entire  visible  text  is  simply  human,  each  man  must 
determine  for  himself  by  his  own  reason  or  conscience 
how  much  may  be  accepted  as  the  Word  of  God.  Thus 
the  Bible  can  have  practically  no  objective  authority,  for 
it  will  have  to  each  man  only  such  authority  as  he  may- 
be pleased  to  accord  it. 

4.  It  undermines  the  trustworthiness  of  the  whole 
Bible.     For  if  the  writers  of  the  Holy  Scripture  were  not 


50 

enabled  to  make  correct  statements  on  matters  of  history 
and  every-day  occurrence,  in  which  it  is  comparatively 
easy  to  avoid  errors,  most  men  must  feel  that  the  state- 
ments of  such  writers  respecting  the  more  difficult  ques- 
tions of  faith  and  morals  are  unworthy  of  acceptance. 

Furthermore,  the  doctrine  of  the  truthfulness  of  the 
Holy  Scripture  is  supported  by  the  entire  evidence,  which 
commends  all  its  other  doctrines  to  our  faith.  If  this 
evidence  is  not  trustworthy  in  the  case  of  one,  it  is  not 
trustworthy  in  respect  of  any  doctrine. 

The  final  judgment  of  the  Presbytery,  therefore,  on 
this  charge,  is  not  in  accord  with  the  law  and  testimony 
in  the  case,  and  it  should  be  reversed. 

Genuineness  and  Authenticity. 

I.  In  the  fourth  charge,  the  fifth  of  the  amended  series, 
relating  to  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, Dr.  Briggs  is  charged  with  denying  the  Mosaic 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  He  admits  that  both  speci- 
fication and  charge  are  accurate,  but  denies  that  his  teach- 
ing on  this  point  constitutes  an  offence. 

In  his  Response  to  the  original  charges  and  specifica- 
tions. Dr.  Briggs  affirmed  that  Mosaic  history,  Mosaic  in- 
stitutions and  Mosaic  legislation  lie  at  the  base  of  all  the 
original  documents.  In  his  Defence  he  asserts  that  a 
Mosaic  code  exists  in  Chapters  12  to  26  of  Deuteronomy ; 
that  some  Mosaic  laws  are  contained  in  Chapters  20  to  23 
of  Exodus,  and  that  some  general  principles  for  direction 


51 

to  the  priesthood  were  given  by  Moses,  the  place  of 
which  he  does  not  indicate.  (Who  Wrote  the  Penta- 
teuch ?  pp.   23,   1 58,  159.) 

This  legislation,  however,  was  merely  rudimentary. 
The  Pentateuch,  as  we  have  it,  was  a  development. 
Deuteronomy  did  not  attain  its  present  form  until  in  the 
times  of  King  Josiah  ;  the  Priest  code  not  until  the  times 
of  Ezra,  and  the  code  of  holiness  came  ''  into  the  historic 
"  field  first  in  connection  with  Ezekiel."  (Who  Wrote 
the  Pentateuch?  pp.  124,  i5y,)  Yet,  because  a  few 
rudimentary  laws  given  by  Moses  were  the  basis  of 
the  small  original  documents,  we  are  told  that  ''  the 
''  name  of  Moses  pervades  the  Pentateuch  as  a  sweet 
"  fraorrance." 

o 

Dr.  Briggs  maintains  that  such  elaborate  codes  as  those 
of  the  Pentateuch  could  not  have  originated  in  the  early 
national  existence  of  Israel.  "  Several  generations  are 
''  necessary,"  he  says,  *'to  account  for  such  a  series  of 
**  modifications  of  the  same  law."  (Who  Wrote  the 
Pentateuch?  p.  106.)  Again  he  states:  "There 
"  seems  to  be  no  room  for  them  (the  laws),  in 
''  the  times  of  Moses  or  Joshua  or  Samuel  or  David. 
"  The  providential  historical  circumstances  did  not  admit 
''  of  obedience  to  such  elaborate  codes  before  we  find 
*'  them  in  the  history  of  the  times  of  Josiah  and  Ezra. 
'*  A  priestly  code  seems  to  require  its  historical  origin  in 
''  a  dominant  priesthood.     A  prophetic  code  seems  best 


52 

"  to  originate  in  a  period  when  prophets  were  in  the  pre- 
''  eminence.  A  theocratic  code  suits  best  a  prosperous 
*'  Kingdom  and  a  period  when  elders  and  judges  were  in 
"  authority."     (Who  Wrote  the  Pentateuch?  p.  124.) 

Thus  Dr.  Briggs  declares  the  great  body  of  laws  and 
regulations  which  are  contained  in  the  Pentateuch  to  be 
not  merely  post-Mosaic  in  origin,  but  to  be  post-Mosaic 
by  several  centuries,  so  that,  naturally  enough,  he  can 
call  the  Pentateuch  an  '*  anonymous  "  book,  and  Deuter- 
onomy a  "  pseudonym."  He  reaches  this  result  by  using 
processes  based  on  naturalism  and  evolution,  which 
enable  him  to  determine  at  what  period  in  the  history  of 
Israel  the  literature  and  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  could  have 
arisen  and  come  to  their  present  form.  By  the  same 
processes,  he  is  enabled  to  declare  the  laws  of  the  Penta- 
teuchal  Codes  mutually  inconsistent  (Who  Wrote  the 
Pentateuch?  pp.  loi,  etc.)  ;  and  to  speak  of  the  histories 
of  the  patriarchs,  as  well  as  some  later  Mosaic  history,  as 
stories  derived  from  an  unreliable  tradition.  (Who 
Wrote  the  Pentateuch?  pp.  75,  79.) 

Dr.  Briggs  informs  us  that  these  results  are  endorsed 
by  a  virtual  consensus  of  biblical  scholarship.  This  we 
deny.  A  large  number  of  biblical  scholars  does  not  con- 
sent. All  the  leading  names  in  the  list,  given  by  Dr. 
Briggs,  are,  in  my  opinion,  not  biblical,  but  anti-biblical 
scholars,  since  they  deny  the  presence  of  the  Supernatural 
in  the  Bible  ;  and  the  rest  do  not  hold  to  a  true  doctrine 
of  inspiration. 


53 

But  there  is  In  fact  no  consensus  amone  the  hieher 
critics  in  regard  to  the  source  of  the  Pentateuchal  docu- 
ments, their  number,  the  times  of  their  composition,  and 
the  results  reached  from  an  investigation  of  them.  And 
when  further,  we  remember  that  the  higher  critics  con- 
duct their  inquiry  by  principles  which  are  purely  sub- 
jective to  themselves,  and  that  the  results  which  they 
have  reached  are  not  only  contrary  to  all  known  historical 
facts,  but  also  to  the  obvious  teaching  of  the  Word  of 
God,  it  is  preposterous  to  ask  Christian  people  to  put 
confidence  in  their  conclusions. 

Criticism  of  this  type  ignores  the  one  great  fact  in  the 
life  and  history  of  Israel,  which  harmonizes  and  veri- 
fies everything  in  the  Pentateuch  as  the  work  of  Moses  ;  it 
fails  to  recognize  the  visible  presence  of  Jehovah  with  the 
Israelites  to  control  their  entire  national  life,  whether  civil 
or  religious. 

The  Holy  Scripture,  as  shown  by  the  texts  appended 
to  the  specification  of  this  charge,  gives  an  account  of  the 
origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  altogether  different  from  that 
given  by  Dr.  Briggs. 

The  Pentateuch  itself  points  to  Moses  as  its  author.  It 
speaks  of  him  as  a  maker  of  books,  in  which  he  wrote 
history  and  laws  by  the  command  of  Jehovah. 

A  great  part  of  the  document  is  ascribed  to  the  pen  of 
Moses.  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers  and  Deuteronomy 
are  credited  to  him,  as  the  medium  throuo^h  whom  God 


54 

communicated  them  to  his  people,  when  Israel  was  in  the 
Wilderness,  and  when  Aaron  and  Eliezer  were  high- 
priests.  The  laws  of  all  the  codes  appear  in  the  Penta- 
teuch as  a  unit  on  the  background  of  Israel's  wilderness 
life,  not  mutually  conflicting,  but  mutually  supplementary 
to  each  other. 

It  is  conceded  that  Genesis  has  a  common  authorship 
with  the  other  four  books.  So  that  we  must  accept  the 
conclusion  that  the  Pentateuch  claims  Moses  as  its  author. 
Scholars  like  Kuenen  freely  admit  this. 

If  this  claim  be  not  true,  then  the  Pentateuch  is  neither 
genuine  nor  authentic,  and  it  must  be  untrustworthy.  If 
the  Pentateuch's  claim  of  Mosaic  authorship  be  false,  and 
the  work  originated  piece  by  piece  during  centuries  after 
the  death  of  Moses,  the  document  as  it  has  come  to  us  is 
a  fraud,  and  no  dependence  can  be  placed  upon  it. 

Dr.  Briggs  would  have  us  believe  that  a  book  thus 
constructed  may  still  be  spoken  of  as  inspired.  Thus  he 
says,  on  page  121  of  the  Defence:  "If  Ezra  can  be 
*'  shown  to  be  responsible  for  our  present  Pentateuch,  is 
"  he  not  as  truly  a  well-known  biblical  and  inspired 
"  man  and  as  capable  of  producing  a  rule  of  faith  and 
"  practice  as  Moses  ?  "  Well,  we  should  say  not.  For 
we  would  have  to  change  our  ideas  completely,  not 
only  of  Ezra,  but  of  inspiration,  to  suppose  that  he,  as 
an  inspired  man,  could  palm  off  on  a  credulous  people,  a 
piece  of  deceit  and  fraud  as  the  truth  of  God.  If  Ezra 
could  do  that,  then  we  say  without  hesitation  that  he  was 


55 

not  as  capable  of  producing  a  rule  of  faith  and  practice  as 
Moses. 

Inspiration,  as  understood  by  Dr.  Briggs,  is  clearly  not 
that  kind  of  inspiration  which  will  keep  the  inspired  writer 
from  makincf  mistakes  or  tellinof  lies. 

But  the  Pentateuch  is  not  alone  in  assertinor  that  Moses 
is  its  author.  The  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
concur  in  that  claim.  The  entire  body  of  the  Mosaic  leg- 
islation seems  to  have  been  in  existence  immediately 
after  the  death  of  Moses  in  the  times  of  Joshua,  for  the 
people  are  commanded  by  the  Lord  to  guide  their  life 
and  conduct  by  it.  The  Book  of  Joshua  gives  evi- 
dence of  the  existence  at  that  time  of  Mosaic  regfulations, 
which  Dr.  Briggs  assigns  to  succeeding  centuries  ;  as,  for 
instance,  the  command  to  the  2)%  tribes  to  help  their 
brethren  in  conquering  the  land  (1:13),  the  rule  that  the 
Levites  should  have  no  inheritance  (13:14)  ;  that  Hebron 
should  be  given  to  Caleb  (14:6)  ;  that  the  land  should  be 
divided  by  lot  (14:2)  ;  that  cities  of  refuge  should  be  set 
apart ;  and  many  other  regulations.  The  same  can  be 
said  of  the  other  preexillc  books,  especially  of  Hosea  and 
Amos,  and  of  some  of  the  Davidic  Psalms.  They  testify 
to  the  existence  of  the  Mosaic  laws  as  a  whole  by  direct 
statements,  and  by  revelations  of  the  life  and  customs  of 
the  people  in  their  respective  periods.  Indeed,  all  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  testify  in  favor  of  the  Mosaic 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 

Wellhausen  says  that  in  the  time  of  Chronicles,  Moses 


56 

was  already  taken  to  be  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch. 
(Encyclopedia  Britannica.     Pentateuch.) 

It  must  then  either  have  existed  and  been  believed  in  as 
Mosaic  in  the  time  of  the  Kings  before  the  Exile  as  the 
book  states  ;  or  the  account  must  have  been  worked  into 
Chronicles  fictitiously  by  Ezra  after  the  Exile.  If  the 
latter  supposition  be  true,  as  the  critics  assert,  then  Ezra 
perpetrated  a  fraud ;  and  he  did  it  so  well  that  not  only 
did  none  of  his  learned  contemporaries  detect  it,  but 
neither  Jews  nor  Christians  for  many  centuries  since  then 
had  the  slightest  suspicion  of  its  being  a  fraud. 

The  Jewish  people  for  3,000  years  have  given  their 
united  testimony  in  behalf  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch.  The  Christian  Church  has  always  united  in 
that  testimony.  This  singular  unanimity  of  God's  people 
on  this  question  for  so  many  centuries  is  of  such  great 
value  that  it  cannot  be  sneered  out  of  Court  as  mere 
traditionalism. 

Such  a  consensus  Is  not  to  be  cast  aside  for  the  trivial 
reason  that  it  does  not  accord  with  the  subjective  impres- 
sions of  the  higher  critics,  which  impressions  are  those  of 
men  as  fallible  as  the  rest  of  us. 

Prof.  Thayer,  of  Harvard,  himself  a  progressive  critic, 
says  that  the  recent  discovery  of  the  Gospel  according  to 
Peter  *'  affords  conjectural  criticism  some  edifying  lessons." 
He  states,  it  "consigns  the  staple  of  books  like  '  Super- 
"  natural  Religion,'  with  their  conjectural  criticism  on  the 
''  Gospels,  'to  the  Museum  of  biblical  antiquities.'" 


57 

Conjectural  criticism  on  the  Pentateuch  is  likely  to  be 
consigned  some  day  to  the  same  museum  of  biblical  an- 
tiquities. It  has  not  established  its  claim  to  our  confidence. 
For  not  all  of  those  who  use  it  attain  to  eood  results 
when  working  in  fields  where  the  rest  of  us  can  follow. 

Thus  Dr.  Briggs  has  misapprehended  completely  the 
teaching  of  the  Fathers,  Reformers,  and  Westminster 
divines  respecting  the  truthfulness  of  the  Bible.  If  he 
has  not  been  unable  to  understand  them  on  a  point  which 
they  make  so  clear,  how  can  we  trust  ourselves  to  him  in 
the  more  difftcult  task  of  ascertaining  what  kind  of  He- 
brew history  and  doctrine,  holy  inspired  men  ought  to 
have  written  in  the  Bible  ? 

But  Christ  and  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  give 
unqualified  testimony  to  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch.  When  speaking  of  ''  the  law,''  "  the  law  of 
Moses,''  ''the  book  of  Moses''  and  ''^  Moses'  writings!'  they 
used  those  terms,  in  the  accepted  meanings  of  that  time, 
as  referring  to  the  entire  Pentateuch.  They  charged 
the  Jews  with  sin  in  not  believing  and  obeying  what 
Moses  had  written.  They  accepted  and  endorsed  the 
belief  of  the  Jews  that  Moses  was  responsible  for  the 
whole  Pentateuch. 

Christ  refers  to  Moses  by  name  eighteen  times,  not  as 
referring  to  a  book  of  that  name,  but  to  him  personally, 
as  a  great  national  leader,  his  own  forerunner,  who  gave 
laws  and  commandants,  and  also  wrote  of  Him. 


58 

In  assigning  to  Moses  the  patriarchal  institution  of  cir- 
cumcision (John  7:  22);  laws  like  those  concerning 
divorce  (Mark  10:  5)  ;  and  the  account  concerning  the 
burning  bush  (Mark  12:  26)  ;  he  credits  Moses  with  be- 
ing the  author  of  the  Pre-Mosaic,  the  legislative  and  the 
historical  parts  of  the  Pentateuch.  That  includes  the  en- 
tire document.  He  certainly  assigns  the  whole  body  of 
Pentateuchal  laws  to  Moses  (Luke  16:  29;  Jno.  7:  19; 
Mt.  8:  14;  19:8;  23:  2;  John  7:  23)  ;  and  never  spoke 
of  any  part  of  the  Pentateuch  in  a  disparaging  way  ;  but 
by  what  he  said  and  did  not  say,  made  it  clear  that  He  re- 
garded the  whole  of  it  to  be  the  Word  of  God,  reliable 
and  true  in  all  its  parts. 

The  higher  critics  feel  the  force  of  this  testimony  of 
Christ,  and  feel  called  upon  to  explain  how  it  is  that  their 
statements  about  the  Pentateuch  are  in  conflict  with  the 
teaching  of  Christ.  Dr.  Briggs  maintains  that  when 
Christ  assigns  a  particular  law  or  statement  to  Moses,  it 
and  no  more  belongs  to  the  great  law-giver.  He  min- 
imizes the  testimony  of  Christ  on  this  point,  thus : 
"  When  Jesus  uses  Moses  as  another  name  for  the  law  or 
"  Pentateuch,  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  Jesus  meant  to 
*'  say  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch."  (Who  Wrote  the 
Pentateuch.'^  p.  25.)  But  why  should  it  not  be  certain? 
That  is  what  He  was  understood  to  say,  and  it  certainly 
did  not  behoove  Him,  as  the  great  Teacher  of  truth, 
consciously  to  leave  a  false  impression  on  the  minds  of  His 
hearers. 


59 

The  critics  have  two  ways  of  explaining  this  discrep- 
ancy between  their  teaching  and  that  of  Jesus  Christ : 

I .  One  is,  that  He  knew  Moses  not  to  be  the  author  of 
the  Pentateuch,  but,  since  all  His  contemporaries  believed 
Moses  to  be  its  author,  He  accommodated  Himself  to 
their  belief  and  way  of  speaking. 

Dr.  Biiggs  says  :  '"Jesus  was  not  obliged  to  correct  all 
**the  errors  of  His  contemporaries."  (Who  Wrote  the 
Pentateuch  ?  p.  29.)  Well,  if  that  is  true,  then  it  is  a 
great  pity  that  Dr.  Briggs  did  not  follow  so  good  an  ex- 
ample so  as  not  to  disturb  the  peace  of  a  great  Church. 

But  this  explanation  cannot  be  accepted.  It  would  not 
be  creditable  to  Christ,  especially  from  Dr.  Briggs'  point 
of  view.  For  Dr.  Briggs  holds  the  Mosaic  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch  to  be  one  of  the  barriers  set  up  by  theo- 
logians to  deprive  men  of  the  Bible,  and  states  that  we  shall 
not  be  able  to  see  ''the  magnificent  unity  of  the  whole 
"  Bible,  to  capture  all  its  sacred  treasures  and  to  enjoy  all 
"its  heavenly  glories,"  until  this  mischievous  error  is 
removed  from  the  face  of  the  earth  by  the  destructive 
process  of  the  higher  critics.  If  Christ  knew  that  the 
belief  in  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  would 
prevent  the  Bible  from  being  understood  and  would  rob 
people  of  its  treasures  and  heavenly  glories,  then  should 
He  not  have  exploded  that  error  at  once  ?  We  can  believe 
nothing  less  of  Him. 

2.    The  other  and  more  commonly  adopted  view,    is 


60 

that  Christ  did  not  know  the  real  author  of  the  Pentateuch, 
and  so  fell  into  the  common  error,  with  His  contempo- 
raries, of  believing  and  teaching  that  Moses  was  its  author. 
He  never  enjoyed  the  advantage  of  going  to  Oxford  or 
to  Germany  to  acquire  a  scientific  and  conjectural  theory 
for  searching  out  the  truth  of  the  Bible.  He  did  not  know 
the  Scriptures,  and  the  higher  critics  do.  Dr.  Briggs 
speaks  approvingly  of  this  theory,  as  follows  :  ''If  we 
*'  should  say  Jesus  did  not  know  whether  Moses  wrote 
"  the  Pentateuch  or  not,  we  would  not  go  beyond  His  own 
"  saying  that  He  knew  not  the  time  of  His  own  advent. 
''  Those  who  understand  the  doctrine  of  the  humiliation 
"  of  Christ  and  the  incarnation  of  Christ,  find  no  more 
"difficulty  in  supposing  that  Jesus  did  not  know  the 
*'  author  of  the  Pentateuch  than  that  He  did  not  know 
*'  the  day  of  His  own  advent."  (Who  Wrote  the  Penta- 
teuch ?  pp.  28,  29.)  Conscious  ignorance  of  that  distant 
future  day  is  one  thing  ;  but  the  unconscious  teaching  of 
error  is  quite  another.  The  one  would  not  detract  from 
the  truthful  testimony  of  Christ,  the  other  would.  He  made 
no  disclaimer  of  knowledge  on  this  point,  but  claimed  and 
made  the  impression  that  He  did  know  all  about  the  Pen- 
tateuch and  its  author.  He  is  the  truth.  He  came  into 
the  world  to  bear  witness  to  the  truth,  and  positively  as- 
serted that  He  always  spoke  the  truth.  He  declared  to 
the  Jews  :  *'  He  that  sent  me  is  true  ;  and  I  speak  to  the 
''  world  those  things  which  I  have  heard  of  Him.''  Could 
He  affirm  in  a  more  solemn  way  the  entire  truthfulness 
of  all  that  He  said? 


61 

The  New  Testament  gives  a  large  amount  of  evidence 
that,  as  sinlessly  perfect  and  as  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit, 
the  knowledge  of  Christ  was  universal.  And  to  affirm 
that  when  He  declared  Moses  to  be  the  author  of  tlie 
Pentateuch,  He  erred  through  ignorance,  is  a  reflection 
upon  His  mental  as  well  as  upon  His  moral  character, 
which  discredits  the  New  Testament  representation  of 
Him  as  in  all  respects  perfect. 

This  teaching  of  Dr.  Briggs  in  regard  to  the  non-Mosaic 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  is  in  vital  conflict  with  the 
teaching  of  the  whole  Bible.  It  necessarily  involves  the 
positions  that  the  Pentateuch,  as  we  have  it,  is  not  only 
erroneous,  but  also  fraudulent  ;  that  the  writers  of  the 
other  Old  Testament  books  either  knowingly  connived 
at  the  fraud,  or  unintentionally  perpetuated  it  ;  and  that 
the  testimony  of  Christ  and  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment must  be  discredited. 

This  teaching  is  far  more  dangerous  than  affirming  the 
Scripture  to  be  in  error  in  matter  of  minor  importance  ; 
it  tends  to  a  total  destruction  of  faith  in  the  Bible.  It 
has  done  that  already  for  many.  It  is  entirely  at  variance 
with  the  confessional  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Scripture. 

II.  The  question  concerning  the  book  of  Isaiah  involves 
the  same  principles  as  does  that  concerning  the  author- 
ship of  the  Pentateuch. 

The  matter  is  formulated  in  the  fifth  charge,  or  the 
sixth  of  the  amended  form,  in  which  Dr.  Briggs  is  charged 
"  with  teaching  that  Isaiah  is  not  the  author  of  half  the 


62 

''  book  that  bears  his  name.''     He  admits  this  to  be  his 
teachinof  but  denies  that  it  is  an  offence. 

In  his  Defence,  he  points  out  the  26  Chapters  which 
he  allots  to  Isaiah,  and  the  39  which  he  takes  from  him, 
although  bearing  his  name. 

He  is  led  to  this  result,  not  by  historic  facts,  but,  as 
shown  in  his  Defence  (pp.  132-146),  by  subjective  im- 
pressions whereby  he  finds  himself  able  to  determine  the 
style  in  which  a  man  like  Isaiah  ought  to  have  written, 
what  theological  ideas  it  was  possible  for  him  to  express, 
and  from  what  historical  situation  it  was  possible  for  him 
to  utter  predictive  prophecies.  The  last,  however,  is  the 
decisive  test.  It  is  with  the  critics  a  canon  of  infallible 
authority  that  a  prophet  of  God  can  predict  future  events 
only  from  his  own  historical  point  of  view,  and  to  the 
needs  of  the  people  of  his  age.  Chapter  13  to  14  :  23  is 
taken  from  Isaiah  for  the  reason  that  that  section  cannot 
stand  this  test  of  their  canon  of  criticism.  The  style  and 
theological  ideas  are  correct  enough,  but  it  contains  a 
predictive  prophecy  which  Isaiah  could  not  have  given 
from  his  own  historical  situation,  and  the  passage  can 
therefore  not  be  assigned  to  him.  But  the  Scripture 
credits  Isaiah  with  it.  It  begins  with  the  statement  : 
*'  The  burden  of  Babylon,  which  Isaiah  the  son  of  Amos 
*'  did  see."  (Isa.  13:1.)  The  explanation  by  which  Dr. 
Briggs  seeks  to  nullify  this  distinct  affirmation  of  the 
Bible  is  weak,  far-fetched  and  entirely  unsatisfactory.  In 
the  same  way  the  entire  book  could  be  taken  from  Isaiah. 


63 

But  It  shows  that  any  statement  of  the  Bible,  which  comes 
in  conflict  with  the  theory  of  higher  criticism,  must  be 
discredited  ;  and  thus  we  see  here  again,  as  In  the  case 
of  the  Pentateuch,  that  this  criticism  undermines  the 
trustworthiness  of  a  biblical  writing  by  denying  its  claim 
about  itself  If  Isaiah  did  not  write  Chapter  13  to 
14  :  23,  then  that  section  is  neither  genuine  nor  authentic. 
It  makes  a  false  claim.  It  pretends  to  be  what  it  is  not, 
and  so  Is  wholly  unworthy  of  confidence. 

The  assumption  of  the  critics  by  which  this  result  is 
reached  also  destroys  the  evidential  value  of  prophecy. 
For,  if  a  prophet  can  only  speak  from  his  own  historical 
point  of  view  and  to  the  needs  of  his  own  times,  then 
predictive  prophecy  requires  no  more  divine  help  than 
that  long  foresight  by  the  help  of  which  wise  statesmen 
have  often  been  able  to  point  out  needed  lessons  for  the 
future  from  the  drift  of  present  events.  Here  again  we 
see  the  damaging  nature  of  the  theory  of  higher  criticism. 
It  aims  to  explain  supernatural  phenomena  in  biblical 
history  and  prophecy  on  merely  naturalistic  principles. 

But  this  division  of  Isaiah  Is  In  direct  conflict  with  the 
statements  of  Christ  and  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. They  assign  quotations  from  all  parts  of  the  book 
to  him,  as  a  person.  With  reference  to  the  disputed  parts 
it  Is  said  :  ''  For  Esalas  salth.  Lord,  who  hath  believed  our 
''  report?''  But  Esaias  is  very  bold,  "I  was  found  of 
''  them  that  sought  me  not ;  I  was  made  manifest  unto 
^*  them  that  asked  not  after  me.  These  things  said 
''  Esalas,  when  he  saw  His  glory  and  spake  of  Him.'' 


64 

It  is  clear  that,  with  all  his  contemporaries,  Christ  be- 
lieves Isaiah  to  be  the  author  of  the  entire  book  which 
bears  his  name,  as  He  held  Moses  to  be  the  author  of  the 
Pentateuch  ;  and  it  must  destroy  confidence  in  Him  as 
the  great  Teacher  of  the  New  Testament  dispensation,  if 
He  was  so  ignorant  respecting  the  character  and  origin 
of  the  Old  Testament,  which  He  pretended  to  know 
thoroughly,  which  He  came  to  fulfill,  and  on  which  He 
claimed  to  found  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel.  This 
teaching  must  bring  discredit  on  Christ  as  the  Teacher. 

These  declarations  of  Dr.  BriQ-crs  in  reference  to  the 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  and  of  Isaiah,  but  especially 
of  the  former,  create  distrust  of  the  entire  Bible.  His 
teaching  necessarily  involves  that.  He  says  :  "  Higher 
''  criticism  comes  into  conflict  with  the  authority  of 
"  Scripture  when  it  finds  that  its  statements  are  not  au- 
*'  thoritative  and  its  revelations  are  not  credible."  (Bibli- 
cal Study,  p.  243.) 

Dr.  Briggs  here  admits  that  higher  criticism  does 
come  into  conflict  with  the  authority  of  Scripture  to  the 
extent  of  finding  some  of  its  statements  not  authoritative 
and  some  of  its  revelations  not  credible.  And  how  is  it 
possible  to  keep  the  whole  Bible  from  being  involved  in 
distrust  if  higher  criticism  finds  its  statements  not  au- 
thoritative and  its  revelations  not  credible  ? 

This  teaching  of  Dr.  Briggs  is  contrary  also  to  our  Con- 
fessional statements.      *'  The  consent  of  all  the  parts," 


65 

can  bear  no  testimony  to  the  entire  perfection  of  such  a 
Bible  as  the  higher  criticism  gives  us.  In  fact,  all  the 
parts  dissent  as  we  have  seen,  and  Dr.  Briggs'  position 
comes  to  this,  that  the  Bible  is  so  full  of  conflictine  and 
mutually  inconsistent  elements,  that  it  requires  to  be  cut 
to  pieces  by  the  higher  criticism  and  reconstructed  on  a 
different  basis  before  the  different  parts  will  consent 
harmoniously. 

This  criticism  also  contravenes  that  statement  of  our 
Confession  which  says  :  ''  The  infallible  rule  of  interpreta- 
''  tion  of  Scriptures  is  Scripture  itself,"  for  It  does  not  In- 
terpret Scripture  by  ' '  other  places  of  Scripture  which 
"  speak  more  plainly,"  but  by  the  evolutionary  principles 
of  the  conjectural  theory.  If  we  allow  Scripture  to  Inter- 
pret Itself  we  find  confirmed  the  authorship  of  the  Penta- 
teuch and  Isaiah  by  Moses  and  Isaiah  respectively. 

But  our  Standards  assert  that  the  entire  written  Bible 
is  to  be  believed,  received  and  obeyed,  for  the  reason  that 
it  Is  the  word  of  God,  the  God  of  truth  being  the  author 
thereof,  and  that  the  Christian  shows  his  faith  by  believing 
"  to  be  true,  whatsoever  Is  revealed  in  the  word,  for  the 
*'  authority  of  God  Himself  speaking  therein." 

It  Is  Impossible  to  require  such  faith  in  a  Scripture 
which  Is  not  only  erroneous  but  also  tainted  with  fraud. 

The  verdict  of  acquittal  by  the  Inferior  judicatory  on 
these  two  charges  is  therefore  contrary  to  the  law  and 
evidence  In  this  case  and  should  not  be  allowed  to  stand 
as  the  judgment  of  our  Church. 


66 

The  rejected  charges  may  be  considered  at  this  point. 
We  claim  that  the  inferior  judicatory  erred  in  ordering 
these  two  charges  to  be  stricken  out.  It  was  an  error 
for  the  reason  that  they  allege  valid  offences,  as  we  will 
now  show. 

I.     Predictive  Prophecy. 

In  the  fourth  of  the  amended  charges,  Dr.  Briggs  is 
charged  '*  with  teaching  that  many  of  the  Old  Testament 
''  predictions  have  been  reversed  by  history,  and  that  the 
''  great  body  of  Messianic  prediction  cannot  be  fulfilled." 

He  complains  that  he  is  misquoted,  and  that  invalid 
inferences  are  drawn  from  his  statement,  but  the  complaint 
is  not  well  founded.  The  entire  statement  is  given  in  the 
specification,  and  it  sustains  the  charge.  The  qualifying 
clause  concerning  **  the  details  of  predictive  prophecy  of 
''  the  Old  Testament ''  in  no  wise  modifies  the  statement 
that  "many  of  these  predictions  have  been  reversed  by 
"  history." 

The  statement  was  originally  made  by  Kuenen,  and 
when  Dr.  Briggs  adopted  it  as  his  own,  he  failed  to  state 
that  he  did  not  use  it  with  Kuenen's  meaning.  Kuenen 
sustained  his  position  by  denial  of  the  reality  of  predictive 
prophecy,  the  inspiration  of  the  prophet  and  the  presence 
of  the  supernatural  in  the  Bible.  He  says  :  "  It  is  the 
'*  common  conviction  of  all  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
''  ment  that  the  Old  Testament  is  inspired  of  God,  and  is 
"  thus  invested  with  divine  authority.    The  remark,  made 


67 

"  as  It  were  in  passing,  in  a  passage  from  the  fourth  Gos- 
''  pel,  that  the  Scripture  cannot  be  broken,  is  assented 
"  to  by  all  the  writers,  without  distinction.  In  accordance 
"  with  this  they  ascribe  divine  fore-knowledge  to  the 
''  Israelitish  prophets.  And  far  indeed  from  limiting  this 
''  fore-knowledge  to  generalities,  and  thus  depriving  it  of 
'*  all  its  importance,  they  refer  us  repeatedly  to  the 
''  agreement  between  specific  prophetical  utterances  and 
*'  single  historical  facts,  and  have  no  hesitation  in  declar- 
''  ing  their  conviction,  both  that  the  prophet  spoke  of 
"  these  specific  facts,  and  that  they,  under  God's  direction, 
"  occurred  in  order  that  the  word  of  the  prophet  might  be 
*'  fulfilled.  -J^  *  *  Xhe  New  Testament  judgment 
**  concerning  the  origin  and  nature  of  the  prophetical  ex- 
"  pectations,  and  concerning  their  relation  to  historical 
"  reality,  may  be  regarded  as  diametrically  opposed  to 
"  oicrsy  (Kuenen,  Prophets  and  Prophecy  in  Israel, 
pp.  448,  449.) 

Kuenen  here  acknowledges  that  all  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers  without  distinction  believed  In  the  fulfillment 
of  the  details  of  predictive  prophecy  and  that  he  aimed  to 
disprove  the  details,  the  specific  prophetical  utter  apices  and 
single  historical  facts,  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  the 
value  of  the  prophecy  Itself. 

It  must  be  conceded  that  whenever  predictive  prophecy 
may  become  an  actual  occurrence,  there  must  be  a  suffi- 
cient number  of  details  to  make  that  event  possible  ;  and 
hence,  to  deny  details  is  to  deny  the  actual  occurrence  of 
the  event  predicted. 


68 

But  even  if  admitting  that  the  qualifying  clause  covers 
the  last  sentence,  the  case  is  not  changed.  Dr.  Briggs 
categorically  asserts  all  that  is  charged  against  him,  for 
he  says,  that  "  the  great  body  of  the  Messianic  prediction 
"  has  not  only  never  been  fulfilled,  but  cannot  now  be 
"  fulfilled";  and  also  that  "the  prediction  of  Jonah  is  not 
"  the  only  unfulfilled  prediction  in  the  Old  Testament." 
These  utterances  of  Dr.  Briggs  have  caused  alarm  and 
justly.  The  leaders  of  the  higher  criticism  school  are,  for 
the  most  part,  avowedly  hostile  to  that  supernatural  ele- 
ment in  Scripture  which  predictive  prophecy  calls  for  ; 
consistently,  therefore,  they  deny  the  existence  of  such 
prophecy,  and  hold  that  the  prophets  of  Scripture  were 
nothing  more  than  men  of  extraordinary  genius  and  illu- 
mination, whose  utterances  concerning  the  future  were 
based  on  a  far-seeing  foresight  of  the  providential  drift  of 
thines  in  their  historical  situation. 

The  Scripture  contains  a  large  number  of  predictions. 
Some  of  them  have  been  fulfilled,  while  others  remain 
thus  far  unfulfilled.  It  is  possible  that  both  the  matter 
and  form  of  some  predictive  prophecies  have  been  mis- 
understood, and  thus  misinterpreted,  but  it  is  impossible 
to  misunderstand  the  Scripture  position,  that  all  which 
the  Lord  has  spoken  by  the  mouth  of  His  holy  prophets 
is  to  be  fulfilled.  Joshua  states  the  biblical  point  of  view 
in  these  words  :  "  Ye  know  in  your  hearts  and  in  all 
"  your  souls,  that  not  one  thing  hath  failed  of  all  the  good 
''  things  which  the   Lord   your   God   spake    concerning 


69 

**  you  ;  all  are  come  to  pass  unto  you,  and  not  one  thing 
''  hath  failed  thereof.''  How  different  this  from  Dr. 
Briggs'  position. 

The  New  Testament  writers  repeatedly  assert  that  the 
Scriptures  contain  predictive  prophecy,  take  for  granted 
that  every  part  of  it  will  be  fulfilled,  and  give  detailed 
instances  where  either  it  has  come  to  pass  or  will  yet 
surely  take  place.  They  thus  refer  to  the  ministry  of 
John  ;  the  fact  that  Christ  was  born  of  a  virgin,  and  at 
Bethlehem,  and  resided  at  Nazareth  ;  that  He  rode  on 
an  ass  into  Jerusalem  ;  was  forsaken  by  His  disciples  ;  was 
sold  for  thirty  pieces  of  silver,  and  that  lots  were  cast  for 
His  vesture.  (Isa.  40  :  3,  and  Mt.  3:3;  Isa.  7:14,  and  Mt. 
I  -.23,  24  ;  Micah  5:2,  and  Mt.  2:5,6;  Mt.  2:23;  Zech. 
9  :  9,  and  Mt.  21  :  4,  5  ;  Zech.  11:12,13,  ^^^  Mt.  27:9; 
Zech.  13  :  7,  and  Mt.  26:  31  ;  Ps.  22  :  18,  and  Mt.  27  :  33.) 
Similarly,  allusion  is  made  to  the  abomination  of  desola- 
tion spoken  by  Daniel  the  prophet  as  certain  to  be  ful- 
filled. (Dan.  9  :  27,  and  Mt.  24  :  i5.)  Here  the  fulfill- 
ment of  Old  Testament  predictions  are  cited  to  the 
minutest  detail. 

The  language  of  Christ  is  still  more  emphatic.  He 
came  not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfill  the  law  and  the 
prophets,  and  most  solemnly  affirmed  that  rather  would 
heaven  and  earth  pass  away  than  that  one  jot  or  one 
tittle  of  them  should  remain  unfulfilled.  (Matt.  5  :  17,  18.) 
He  claimed  the  fulfillment  in  Himself  of  what  the  Spirit 
foretold  by  the  mouth  of  David  in  Psalm  ex.,  and  told  His 


70 

disciples,  after  the  resurrection  :  "  That  all  things  must 
*'  be  fulfilled,  which  were  written  in  the  law  of  Moses, 
**  and  in  the  prophets,  and  in  the  Psalms,  concerning  me." 
(Luke  24  :  44.)  Our  Lord  here  affirms  that  there  is  a 
divine  necessity  that,  not  merely  prophecy  in  general,  but 
all  things  concerning  Him  must  be  fulfilled  ;  ''All  things  '' 
must  surely  include  Messianic  predictions.  Much  more 
might  be  cited  to  the  same  effect,  but  this  is  sufficient. 

If,  in  view  of  all  this,  the  statements  of  Dr.  Briggs  are 
to  be  considered  as  correct,  that  ''many  predictions  of 
"  the  Old  Testament  have  been  reversed  by  history''; 
and  that  '*  the  great  body  of  the  Messianic  prediction  has 
''  not  only  never  been  fulfilled,  but  cannot  now  be  ful- 
''  filled,"  then  the  plain  utterances  of  Scripture  coming 
ostensibly  from  the  Lord  by  the  mouth  of  His  servants 
the  prophets,  together  with  the  declarations  of  Christ  con- 
cerning prophecy  in  general,  and  Messianic  prophecy  in 
particular,  are  contradicted.  It  is  the  Bible  and  Christ 
against  Dr.  Briggs.  The  attributes  of  God,  pointed  out 
in  the  charge,  are  here  involved. 

These  statements  of  Dr.  Briggs  being  in  conflict  with 
the  declarations  of  Scripture  and  the  citations  from  the 
Standards  should  be  condemned  by  this  Court  and  be 
disavowed  by  him. 

2.  Redemption  after  Death. 

The  other  rejected  charge  is  the  7th  of  the  amended 
form,  in  which  Dr.  Briggs  is  charged  ''  with  teaching  that 


71 

''  the   processes   of  redemption  extend   to   the   world  to 
'*  come  in  the  case  of  many  who  die  in  sin." 

It  is  claimed  that  he  disavowed  this  doctrine  by  cate- 
gorically answering  a  question  propounded  to  him  in 
private  by  directors  of  Union  Seminary.  But  such  a  cate- 
gorical answer  under  such  circumstances  proves  nothing 
and  disavows  nothing  ;  the  more  so,  because  since  that 
time  Dr.  Briggs  has  affirmed  his  adherence  to  everything 
which  he  has  stated  in  the  Inaugural  both  as  to  "  matter 
*'  and  form." 

We  therefore  ask  this  Venerable  Body  to  consider 
whether  the  facts  pointed  out  in  the  specification  do  not, 
in  the  light  of  the  evidence  submitted,  prove  the  charge. 

He  accuses  Protestants  of  the  fault  of  not  extending  the 
process  of  redemption  to  the  vast  periods  of  time  in  the 
middle  state  between  death  and  the  resurrection.  (In- 
augural, p.  53.) 

"  The  processes  of  redemption,"  he  states,  ''  ever  keep 
"  the  race  in  mind.  The  Bible  tells  us  of  a  race  origin,  a 
"  race  ideal,  a  race  Redeemer  and  a  race  redemption." 
(Inaugural,  p.  5o.) 

According  to  Dr.  Briggs,  redemption  is  not  limited  by 
election.  He  says,  ''The  Bible  does  not  teach  universal 
''  salvation,  but  it  does  teach  the  salvation  of  the  world,  of 
"  the  race  of  man,  and  that  cannot  be  accomplished  by 
"  the  selection  of  a  limited  number  of  individuals  from  the 


72 

''  mass.  ''*  *  "^  The  salvation  of  the  world  can  only  mean 
"  the  world  as  a  whole,  compared  with  which  the  unre- 
"  deemed  will  be  so  few  and  insignificant  and  evidently 
''  beyond  the  reach  of  redemption  by  their  own  act  of 
'*  rejecting  it  and  hardening  themselves  against  it,  and  by 
*'  descending  into  such  depths  of  demoniacal  depravity  in 
"  the  middle  state,  that  they  will  vanish  from  the  sight  of 
"  the  redeemed  as  altogether  and  irredeemably  evil 
'*  and  never  more  disturb  the  harmonies  of  the  saints." 
(Inaugural,  pp.  55,  56.) 

If  Dr.  Briggs  does  not  teach  in  this  passage  that  some 
men  who  die  impenitent  might  have  been  redeemed  in  the 
middle  state  but  for  their  "  descending  into  such  depths  of 
"  demoniacal  depravity  in  the  middle  state,"  then  certainly 
when  he  tried  to  clothe  his  concept  with  language,  he 
puts  its  clothes  on  upside  down.  The  unmistakable  drift 
of  the  entire  passage  is  that  the  redemption  of  the  world, 
of  the  race  of  man,  is  largely  to  be  accomplished  by  means 
of  the  opportunities  which  will  be  given  them  in  the 
middle  state. 

And  this  agrees  with  what  Dr.  Briggs  has  stated  con- 
cerning "  a  judgment  immediately  after  death."  (In- 
augural, p.  54.)  He  calls  it  a  ''  hurtful  unchristian  error,"  a 
"bugbear,"  which  "makes  death  a  terror  to  the  best  of 
men."  This  points  unmistakably  to  another  chance  after 
death,  since  the  issues  of  life  are  not  to  be  regarded  as 
final  at  death.    It  is  a  hurtful  error  which  he  renounces. 

In  line  with  this.  Dr.  Briorors  terms  the  statements  of 


73 

Dr.  Dorner  concerning  the  possibility  of  repentance  in  the 
next  world,  ''excellent  thoughts."  (Whither,  p.  211.) 
His  remarks  about  the  unpardonable  sin  cited  in  the 
specification,  point  in  the  same  direction.  He  says  of 
some  classes  of  people  that  not  until  they  reach  the 
middle  state  "  are  they  justified,  for  there  can  be  no  justifi- 
*'  cation  without  faith  for  them  any  more  than  for  others. 
*'  The  intermediate  state  is  for  them  a  s^a^e  of  blessed pos- 
'*  sibilities  of  redemption."  (Magazine  of  Christian  Litera- 
ture, Dec,  1889,  p.  no.)  "We  are  opening  our 
''  minds,"  he  says,  ''  to  see  that  the  Redeemer's  work  upon 
"  the  cross  was  the  beginning  of  a  larger  work  in  the 
"  realm  of  the  dead,  and  from  His  heavenly  throne 
*'  whence  the  exalted  Saviour  is  drawing  all  men  to 
''  Himself."  (Andover  Review,  vol.  13,  p.  Sq.)  And 
again,  "  If  life  in  this  world  is  brief,  and  life  in  the  middle 
*'  state  is  long,  we  must  rise  to  the  conception  of  the  love 
"  of  God  as  accomplishing  even  greater  works  of  redemp- 
"  tion  in  the  middle  state  than  in  this  world."  (Magazine 
of  Christian  Literature,  Dec,  1889,  p.  106.) 

These  are  danorerous  utterances,  all  the  more  so  be- 
cause  they  come  from  a  professor  of  a  prominent  Theo- 
logical Seminary.  They  are  calculated  to  make  men 
careless  about  their  eternal  welfare  and  lead  them  to 
presume  on  the  mercy  of  God.  The  Scriptures  and  the 
Standards  of  our  Church,  as  shown  by  the  citations 
annexed  to  this  charge,  confine  the  work  of  redemption 
to  this  life  under  the  dispensation  of  the  Gospel.     Both 


74 

Scripture  and  Standards  agree  in  declaring  that  "  now  is 
"  the  accepted  time,  behold  now  is  the  day  of  salvation ''  ; 
that  "it  is  appointed  unto  men  once  to  die,  but  after  this 
^'  J7idgment,''  and  that  there  is  an  impassable  "  gulf  fixed  " 
immediately  after  death  between  the  righteous  and  the 
wicked.     (2  Cor.  6:2;  Heb.  9  :  27  ;  Luke  16  :  26.) 

This  teaching  of  Dr.  Briggs  should  be  condemned  by 
this  Court,  and  be  retracted  by  him. 

Progressive  Sanctification  after  Death. 
The  last  or  8th  charge  of  the  amended  form  refers  to 
the  subject  of  Progressive  Sanctification  after  death,  ia 
which  Dr.  Briggs  is  charged  ''  with  teaching  that  Sancti- 
''  fication  is  not  complete  at  death." 

He  admits  the  charge,  but  denies  that  it  constitutes 
an  offence,  alleging  not  only  that  the  doctrine  is  not 
contrary  to  the  Scripture  and  Standards,  but  also  that  it 
is  the  very  doctrine  taught  in  them. 

Sanctification  has  for  its  aim,  the  removal  of  sin  from 
the  nature  of  believers  with  all  its  effects.  ''  Sanctifica- 
"  tion  is  a  work  of  God's  free  grace,  whereby  we  are 
''  renewed  in  the  whole  man  after  the  image  of  God,  and 
"  are  enabled  more  and  more  to  die  unto  sin  and  live 
*'  unto  righteousness."  And  when  we  are  completely 
dead  to  sin,  when  it  has  been  entirely  exterminated  from 
the  soul,  then  sanctification  has  completed  its  work,  and 
the  believer,   having  been  renewed  in   the   whole  man 


75 

after  the  image  of  God,  will  live  unto  righteousness,  and 
be  perfectly  holy.  He  will  be  no  longer  in  need  of  either 
sanctification  or  redemption. 

Adam,  before  he  sinned,  as  created  in  the  image  of 
God,  was  perfectly  holy,  and  did  not  need  to  have  any 
part  of  the  process  of  redemption  applied  to  him.  It  was 
possible  for  him  to  advance  in  the  breadth  and  intensity 
of  holy  life  to  all  eternity,  but  such  an  onward  growth  in 
holy  life  cannot  be  called  a  process  of  sanctification. 

Christ  was  perfectly  holy  when  He  was  born.  After 
that  He  grew,  as  the  God-man,  into  a  larger  and  fuller 
life,  but  He  was  at  no  time  more  holy  or  morally  perfect 
than  on  the  day  of  His  birth.  In  the  same  way  the 
believer  will,  when  at  death  he  has  been  made  perfect  in 
holiness,  advance  along  all  the  lines  of  holy  life  forever. 
That  is  not  the  question  at  issue. 

That  Dr.  Briggs  uses  the  term  sanctification  in  the 
sense  of  eliminating  sin  from  the  soul  of  believers  is  plain 
from  the  language  of  the  Inaugural.  In  order  to  main- 
tain his  doctrine  of  progressive  sanctification  after 
death,  he  finds  it  necessary  to  attack  the  Protestant 
doctrine,  which  limits  the  process  of  redemption  to  this 
world,  and  refuses  to  extend  it  to  the  vast  periods  of  the 
world  beyond  the  grave.  (Inaugural,  pp.  53,  54.)  The 
Protestant  doctrine,  according  to  which  the  believer  is 
made  perfectly  holy  at  death,  stands  in  the  way  of  Dr. 
Briggs'  doctrine. 


76 

He  affirms  that  progressive  sanctification  after  death  Is 
necessary,  "  In  order  that  the  work  of  redemption  may  be 
''complete."     (Inaugural,  p.  54.) 

He  terms  the  transformation  of  the  saint,  In  the  dying 
hour,  a  magical  illusion,  which  should  be  banished  from 
the  world  and  renounced  as  a  hurtful  unchristian  error. 
(Inaugural,  p.  54.)  He  maintains  that  believers,  after  death, 
"  are  still  the  same  persons,  with  all  the  gifts  and  graces, 
"  and  also  the  same  habits  of  mind,  disposition  and  temper, 
"  which  they  had  when  they  left  the  world.  Death  de- 
''  stroys  the  body.  It  does  not  change  the  moral  and 
"  religious  nature  of  man."  ("  Evil  Habits,"  In  Magazine 
of  Christian  Literature.)  Sin,  therefore,  remains  still  in 
the  higher  nature  of  man,  and  it  is  the  office  of  progressive 
sanctification  after  death  to  overcome  sin  In  that  nature. 
(Inaugural,  2d  ed.,  p.  108.) 

"  The  Intermediate  state,"  he  says,  "  Is  for  all  believers, 
"  without  exception,  a  state  for  their  sanctification.  They 
"  are  there  trained  in  the  School  of  Christ,  and  are  pre- 
"  pared  for  the  Christian  perfection  which  they  must 
"attain  ere  the  judgment  day."  (Magazine  of  Christian 
Literature,  Dec,  1889,  p.  112.)  He  assures  us  that 
believers  are.  In  the  middle  state,  "delivered  from  all 
"  temptations  such  as  spring  from  without,  from  the  world 
"  and  the  devil.  They  are  encircled  with  influences  for 
"  good  such  as  they  never  enjoyed  before."  (Inaugural,  p. 
107.)  Therefore,  "we  may  justly  hold,"  he  states,  "that 
"  the  evil  which  still  lingers  In  the  higher  moral  nature  of 


77 

*'  believers  will  be  suppressed  and  modified  with  an  energy 
"  of  repentance,  humiliation,  confession  and  determination 
"  that  will  be  more  powerful  than  ever  before,  because  it 
''  will  be  stimulated  by  the  presence  of  Christ  and  His 
'*  saints."  (Magazine  of  Christian  Lit.,  Dec,  1889,  p.  114.) 

These  statements  show  that,  in  the  view  of  Dr.  Briggs, 
believers  do  not  enter  the  next  world  free  from  sin.  If 
they  were  without  sin,  then  certainly  there  could  be  no 
place  for  confession,  repentance  and  humiliation  for  sin, 
and  endeavors  to  suppress  it. 

His  reference  to  Abraham,  in  illustration  of  the  doc- 
trine, confirms  this  view.  In  his  earthly  life.  Dr.  Briggs 
tells  us,  the  old  patriarch  lived  on  a  plane  of  moral  ad- 
vancement so  low,  that,  were  he  living  now,  we  could 
not  receive  him  into  our  families  ;  nay,  we  might  be 
obliged  even  to  imprison  him  lest  he  should  defile  the 
community  by  his  example.  But  when  he  ''  went  into 
"  the  abode  of  the  dead,  he  held  his  pre-eminence  among 
"  the  departed.  He  made  up  for  his  defects  in  this  life  by 
"  advancing  in  the  school  of  sanctification  there  open  to 
"  him."  (Inaugural,  pp.  56,  57.)  Abraham  was  freed 
from  sin  and  moral  imperfection  in  the  intermediate  state. 

This  is  still  further  confirmed  by  the  naturalistic  prin- 
ciple of  evolution  which,  in  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Briggs, 
necessitates  the  extension  of  the  process  of  sanctification 
into  the  next  world.  He  states  :  "  It  is  unpsychological 
*'  and  unethical  to  suppose  that  the  character  of  a  disem- 
"  bodied  spirit  will  all  be  changed  in  the  moment  of 
*'  death."     (Inaugural,  pp    107,  loS.) 


T8 

In  his  Defence,  he  maintains  the  same  position.  He 
states  that  the  best  of  Christians  leave  this  world  weak 
and  imperfect  (Defence,  p.  177)  ;  that  they  are  still  impure, 
in  need  of  Christ  as  their  Priest,  and  of  cleansing  by  His 
blood  (Defence,  pp.  166-8);  and  that  they  are  morally 
imperfect  in  nature  and  conduct.  (Defence,  pp.  166,  169, 
170,  172,  173,  175.)  Those  who  are  impure  and  morally 
defective  in  character  and  life  are  sinful ;  for  sin  does  not 
consist  merely  of  positive  transgressions,  but  any  want  of 
conformity  to  the  law  of  God  is  sin.  He  does  in  fact 
affirm  that  not  until  the  judgment  day  shall  believers  be 
fully  and  forever  freed  from  all  sin  (Defence,  p.  i56)  ; 
and  therefore  when  he  says,  "  I  see  believers  enter 
"  the  middle  state  still  imperfect,  but  they  are  cleansed 
"  by  the  blood  of  Christ  from  all  sin,  and  are  therefore 
"  sinless"  (Defence,  p.  177),  he  must  in  consistency  be 
understood  to  mean  that  sin  is  not  imputed  to  them,  as 
it  is  not  to  believers  in  this  world.  This  accords  perfectly 
with  his  statement  on  pp.  i58,  i5g  of  Defence,  where  he 
says  :  "  I  do  not  doubt  that  the  fountain  which  flows 
"  from  the  Redeemer's  side  cleanseth  from  all  sin  in  the 
"  hour  of  death  as  in  any  hour  of  life^  when  the  sinner 
"  opens  his  heart  in  faith  and  repentance  to  the  saving 
"  love  of  Jesus."  All  believers  are  thus  imputatively 
sinless. 

The  whole  contention  of  Dr.  Briggs,  in  his  Defence,  is 
that  the  Bible  and  the  Standards  favor  the  view  that  the 
work  of  making  believers  pure,  morally  perfect  and  holy, 
is  accomplished  by  means   of  progressive  sanctification 


79 

after  death.  In  discussing  one  of  the  rejected  charges,  it 
was  shown  that,  according  to  his  teaching,  the  exercise  of 
faith  and  the  act  of  justification  may  possibly  take  place 
after  death  ;  so  that,  as  sin  cannot  be  removed  before 
justification  nor  before  the  exercise  of  faith  and  repent- 
ance, it  is  clear  that  believers  can  enter  the  next  world 
sinful  and  morally  imperfect. 

This  doctrine  is  contrary  to  the  teaching  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures.  The  two  passages  of  Scripture  appended  to 
this  charge,  show  in  the  one  case  that  the  spirits  of  just 
men  in  the  state  between  death  and  the  resurrection  are 
perfect ;  and  in  the  other,  that  the  transformation  of  the 
saints,  who  shall  be  on  the  earth  when  Christ  shall  come 
again,  from  their  imperfect  and  sinful  condition  in  this  life 
to  perfect  holiness  shall  take  place  instantly,  *'  in  the 
"  twinkling  of  an  eye."  It  is  easily  possible  for  the  Spirit 
of  God  to  work  the  same  change  in  the  souls  of  all 
believers  instantly  at  their  death,  in  spite  of  any  natural 
principle  of  psychology  or  ethics. 

But  the  Bible  teaches  in  many  other  places  that 
believers  enter  immediately  after  death  into  a  state  of 
perfect  holiness.  It  represents  them  there  as  the  "  in- 
"  heritors  of  the  promises,"  as  arrayed  in  white  robes 
with  palms  in  their  hands,  as  having  entered  into  the  per- 
fect rest  of  God  and  exchanged  the  mortal  for  the  im- 
mortal. It  speaks  of  them  as  housed  in  heaven,  where 
only  the  undefiled  can  go,  and  as  having  gone  to  be  for- 
ever with  Christ,   whom  only  the  holy  shall  see.       The 


80 

Bible  gives  no  intimation  of  any  process  of  redemption  or 
sanctification  in  the  next  world. 

The  Standards  of  our  Church,  too,  are  as  silent  as 
the  Bible  respecting  any  Gospel  work,  processes  of  re- 
demption or  ministrations  of  the  Spirit  in  the  life  after 
death.  They  confine  redemption  in  all  its  processes  to 
this  life. 

The  Confession  states  that  ''  the  souls  of  the  righteous  " 
immediately  after  death,  "  being  then  made  perfect  in 
''  holiness,  are  received  into  the  highest  heaven'';  the 
Larger  Catechism  tells  us,  "The  Communion  in  glory 
**  with  Christ  which  the  members  of  the  invisible  church 
'*  enjoy  immediately  after  death,  is  in  that  their  souls  are 
''  then  made  perfect  in  holiness,  and  received  into  the 
*'  highest  heavens,  where  they  behold  the  face  of  God  in 
''  light  and  glory ,"  and  the  Shorter  Catechism  asserts, 
"  The  souls  of  believers  are  at  their  death  made  perfect 
"  in  holiness  and  do  immediately  pass  into  glory''; 
by  no  violence  can  such  language  be  made  consistent 
with  the  doctrine  of  progressive  sanctification  after  death  ; 
it  is  impossible  to  conceive  that  the  authors  of  our  Stand- 
ards could  have  intended  to  teach  any  such  doctrine,  for 
they  held  the  opposing  doctrine,  which  they  have  expressed 
so  well  in  the  statements  quoted.  They  say  in  L.  C,  S^, 
that  the  righteous  "  even  in  death  are  delivered  from  the 
'^  sting  and  curse  of  it ;  so  that  although  they  die,  yet  it 
^'  is  out  of  God's  love,  X.o  free  them  perfectly  from  sin  and 
*'  misery!' 


81 

This  doctrine  of  Dr.  Briggs  then  is  an  offence  accord- 
ing to  the  Book  of  Discipline  for  the  following  three 
reasons  : 

1 .  The  doctrine  is  contrary  to  the  Bible  and  the  Stand- 
ards. It  is  injected  into  them  at  the  behest  of  a  natural- 
istic principle  of  psychology  and  ethics  according  to  which 
the  instant  change  of  a  saint  of  God  at  death  to  perfect 
holiness  by  the  divine  Spirit  is  declared  to  be  a  magical 
illusion. 

2.  It  is  separated  from  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of 
purgatory  by  so  frail  a  barrier  that  it  will  easily  pass  into  it. 

3.  It  will  lead  to  graver  departures  from  the  faith.  The 
doctrine  of  redemption  after  death  is  advocated  at  present 
principally  in  the  interest  of  the  doctrine  of  Second  Pro- 
bation, Dr.  Briggs  entertains  the  largest  hopes  in  re- 
spect to  the  possibilities  of  redemption  in  the  middle 
state. 

He  says,  in  Whither,  p.  221  :  ''The  question  which 
"  we  have  to  determine  as  Calvinists  is — whether  the 
**  divine  act  of  regeneration  may  take  place  in  the  middle 
"  state  or  not." 

Certainly,  if  we  once  admit  that  one  of  the  processes  of 
redemption  takes  place  in  the  middle  state,  we  will  be 
compelled,  ere  long,  in  logical  consistency,  to  affirm  that 
all  the  processes  of  redemption  may  be  carried  on  there. 

The  verdict  of  acquittal,  therefore,   on  this  charge,  is 


82 

contrary  to  the  evidence  and  to  Presbyterian  doctrine, 
and  should  be  reversed. 

We  have  shown  that  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  has 
rendered  a  decision  contrary  to  the  law  and  evidence  in 
giving  Its  verdict  of  acquittal  In  this  case.  As  not  in 
accord  with  true  Presbyterian  doctrine,  the  verdict  should 
be  reversed  and  another  should  be  formulated  in  harmony 
with  our  doctrines  and  the  evidence  in  this  case. 

The  Presbytery,  while  not  approving  the  erroneous 
views  of  Dr.  Briggs,  suggests  that  they  should  be  toler- 
ated in  the  interest  of  scholarship  and  liberty. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  favors  the  best  scholarship 
and  Insists  that  its  ministers  shall  be  thoroughly  educated. 
It  welcomes  the  deepest  research,  but  it  requires  also  a 
reverent  handling  of  the  Word  of  God.  The  type  of 
higher  criticism  which  Is  before  us  has  no  monopoly  of 
scholarship.  Scholars  who  In  knowledge  and  skill  are  at 
least  easily  the  peers  of  those  who  claim  to  be  the  higher 
critics  dispute  their  claims.  Since  the  methods  of  higher 
criticism  are  uncertain  and  Its  results  so  far  not  large,  it 
"becomes  Its  apostles  to  be  modest.  They  have,  however, 
laid  themselves  open  to  suspicion  by  inordinate  conceit 
and  utter  recklessness. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  is  the  friend  of  liberty.  It 
has  always  been  foremost  In  efforts  to  promote  religious, 
civil,  social  and  Individual  freedom.  It  demands  the 
freest  and  fullest  honest  investigation  of  all  the  facts  and 
phenomena  of  the  Bible. 


83 

But  as  in  all  other  relations  and  institutions,  divine  and 
human,  liberty  in  our  Church  or  in  any  other  Church 
must  be  regulated  liberty.  It  has  its  limitations.  The 
freedom  of  one's  house  does  not  mean  the  right  to  pull 
out  its  foundation.  And  liberty  in  a  denomination  can- 
not mean  the  right  to  destroy  its  denominational  life  and 
doctrines. 

No  one  restrains  the  liberty  of  Dr.  Briggs.  He  is  as 
free  to  go  as  he  was  to  come.  On  his  own  responsibility 
he  can  proclaim  his  theological  and  critical  vieAvs  from  the 
liouse-tops.  The  whole  world  will  give  him  a  hearing. 
But  he  may  not  exercise  this  liberty  in  the  denomination, 
at  the  expense  of  that  of  his  brethren.  They  have  an 
equal  right  with  him  to  the  enjoyment  of  liberty. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  is  also  entitled  to  her  share 
of  the  blessings  of  liberty.  If  she  feels  in  conscience 
bound  to  maintain  her  unbroken  testimony  for  doctrines 
which  were  taught  by  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  and  which 
have  been  held  by  the  Church  of  Christ  from  New  Testa- 
ment times  to  the  present,  then  in  God's  name,  the 
liberty  to  do  this  should  be  freely  accorded  to  her.  No 
man  may  wrench  from  her  hand  her  imprimatur  and 
affix  it  to  doctrines  which  are  abhorrent  to  her  member- 
ship and  destructive  of  her  denominational  tenets,  genius 
and  life. 

At  three  different  times  the  General  Assembly  has 
warned  the  churches  aofainst  the  baneful  influence  of  that 
kind  of  biblical  criticism,  which  Dr.  Briggs  (Champions,  as 


84 

tending  to  undermine  faith  in  the  Holy  Scripture  ;  and 
enjoined  the  Presbyteries  to  see  to  it  that  our  students 
for  the  ministry  were  not  subjected  to  this  criticism  dur- 
ing their  theological  training.  The  Church  has  been  very 
patient  in  this  matter,  and  Dr.  Briggs,  not  having  heeded 
the  warning  of  the  Assembly,  has  now  no  right  to  com- 
plain that  his  liberty  is  unduly  interfered  with,  if  they  re- 
fuse longer  to  be  responsible  for  the  destructive  opinions 
which  he  propagates. 

Greater  things  than  mere  liberty  and  scholarship  are 
involved  in  this  issue.  Truth,  honor  and  fidelity  to 
great  trusts  committed  claim  our  attention.  We  are 
in  a  crisis.  Not  only  are  great  doctrines  of  our  faith 
emasculated;  the  Bible  itself  is  in  peril.  It  is  assailed 
from  unusual  quarters.  It  is  wounded  in  the  house  of 
its  friends.  Our  people  are  profoundly  stirred.  They 
are  greatly  troubled,  and  look  to  this  Assembly  for 
relief. 

A  great  responsibility  rests  on  you  to-day,  Mr.  Moder- 
ator and  Brethren.  It  is  for  you  to  decide  whether  our  great 
Church  shall  continue  her  faith  in  the  sole  supremacy  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures  as  the  source  of  authority  in  religion 
for  salvation  and  certainty  ;  or  admit  the  Church  and  the 
Reason  to  an  equality  with  the  Scriptures  in  this  matter  ; 
whether  we  will  continue  our  testimony  for  the  absolute 
truthfulness  and  trustworthiness  of  the  Word  of  God,  or 
tolerate  the  propagation  of  the  doctrine  of  an  errant 
Scripture ;    whether  we  will  still  affirm  the   plenary  in- 


85 

splration  of  the  Holy  Scripture  to  the  extent  of  entire 
truthfulness,  or  so  lower  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  as 
will  permit  us  to  say  that  an  inspired  writer  in  penning 
the  Bible  not  only  committed  errors  but  stated  what  he 
knew  to  be  false,  and  whether  we  shall  still  teach  that  the 
work  of  redemption  is  confined  to  this  life,  or  that  it  is 
to  be  extended  to  the  vast  periods  of  time  which  intervene 
between  death  and  the  resurrection. 

These  questions  have  hitherto  not  been  relegated  in 
the  Presbyterian  Church  to  the  domain  of  liberty  of 
opinion.  They  have  been  regarded  as  of  such  vital 
importance  that  those  who  have  assumed  the  vow  to 
which  Presbyterian  Ministers  subscribe  might  not  differ 
in  respect  to  them. 

The  Presbytery  of  New  York  concedes  that  ''  grave 
"  issues "  are  involved.  Truly,  truly.  Tolerate  the 
errors,  say  the  Presbytery,  but  be  careful  not  to  approve 
them.  Strange  delusion.  Now,  our  people  not  only, 
but  Christian  people  generally,  are  anxiously  waiting  to 
hear  w^hat  answer  this  great  Assembly  will  give  to  these 
questions.  And  the  opportunity  is  offered  to  this  Vener- 
able Body  to  allay  anxiety,  to  restore  confidence  and  to 
re-establish  peace,  by  wise  counsels,  by  bearing  clear 
testimony  for  the  truth  of  God,  by  speaking  with  no 
uncertain  sound,  by  contending  ''  earnestly  for  the  faith 
"  which  was  once  for  all  delivered  unto  the  saints,"  and 
by  firmly  holding  "  fast  the  form  of  sound  words." 


Date  Due 

v.  <:>-  '£(1^ 

.  ^'.  -r\' 

Lt-.i             ■      -:- 

■^  H  1  ; 

' -  .!'■■* 

^^CO^ 

/  Y 

FACMLT1 

f 

f) 

